Askeri Harcamalar ve Yeşil Büyüme İlişkisi: Ampirik Bir Analiz

Öz

Sürdürülebilirlik tartışmalarının yoğun yaşandığı günümüz dünyasında, tartışmalara konu olan bir alan da yeşil büyümedir. Sürdürülebilir bir çevrenin teşviki noktasında yeşil büyüme önemli bir strateji olarak görülmektedir. Yeşil büyümenin gerçekleşmesini zorlaştıran unsurların başında karbondioksit salınımları gelmektedir. Askeri faaliyetlerin de yoğun şekilde karbondioksit salınımına neden olduğu gerçeği söz konusudur. Son dönemlerde geliştirilen askeri teknolojilerin ise çevre dostu olduğu ve kirliliği azaltmaya yönelik hedefler belirlediği de konuya ilişkin çalışmalarda dile getirilmektedir. Bu ilişkilerin ampirik olarak incelenmesi ve detaylarının ortaya koyulması önem arz etmektedir. Bu çalışmada, askeri harcamalar ile yeşil büyüme arasındaki ilişkinin ortaya koyulması amaçlanmıştır. Bu doğrultuda 1995-2017 dönemi verileri ışığında, LM bootstrap panel eşbütünleşme, Emirmahmutoğlu ve Köse panel nedensellik testleri ve AMG uzun dönem tahmin edicileri kullanılmıştır. Ulaşılan ampirik bulgular panelin geneli ve ülkeler özelinde değerlendirilmiştir. Elde edilen bulgular, gelişmişlik seviyesi yüksek olan ülkelerde, askeri harcamaların yeşil büyüme üzerinde pozitif etkiye sahip olduğunu ve nispeten daha az gelişmiş ülkelerde ise bu etkinin negatif olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Bulgular, özellikle gelişmekte olan ülkelerin yeşil büyümeye yönelik politik uygulamalara önem vermesi gerektiğini göstermektedir. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• : Yeşil büyüme
• Askeri harcamalar
• Panel eşbütünleşme
• Panel nedensellik

The Relationship Between Military Expenditures and Green Growth: An Empirical Analysis

Abstract

In today's world where discussions on sustainability are intense, green growth is another area that is the subject of discussion. Green growth is seen as an important strategy in promoting a sustainable environment. Carbon dioxide emissions come first among the factors that make green growth difficult. There is the fact that military activities cause intense carbon dioxide emissions. It is also stated in the studies on the subject that the recently developed military technologies are environmentally friendly and set targets for reducing pollution. It is important to examine these relationships empirically and to reveal their details. This study, it is aimed to reveal the relationship between military expenditures and green growth. In this direction, in the light of the 1995-2017 period data, LM bootstrap panel cointegration, Emirmahmutoğlu and Köse panel causality tests, and AMG long-run estimators were used. Empirical findings were evaluated in general and country-specific. The findings reveal that military spending has a positive effect on green growth in countries with a high level of development, and this effect is negative in relatively less developed countries. The findings show that especially developing countries should give importance to political practices towards green growth.

Keywords

• Green growth
• Military expenditures
• Panel cointegration
• Panel causality

Kaynakça

1. Aydın, M. (2020). Askeri harcamalar, ekonomik büyüme ve çevre kirliliği arasındaki ilişki: Türkiye için yapısal kırılmalı nedensellik testinden kanıtlar. Ekonomi Politika ve Finans Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5 (2), 261-275. https://doi.org/10.30784/epfad.710276
2. Berdikeeva, S. (2017, 5 Haziran). The US military: winning the renewable war. https://energydigital.com/sustainability/us-military-winning-renewable-war.
3. Bildirici, M. (2017). CO2 emissions and militarization in G7 countries: panel cointegration and trivariate causality approaches. Environment and Development Economics, 22(6), 771-791. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X1700016X
4. Bildirici, M. (2018). Impact of military on biofuels consumption and GHG emissions: the evidence from G7 countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(14), 13560-13568. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-1545-x
5. Breusch, T. S. ve Pagan, A. R. (1980). The lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics. The Review of Economic Studies, 47(1), 239-253. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297111
6. Dunne, J. P. ve Tian, N. (2015). Military expenditure, economic growth and heterogeneity. Defence and Peace Economics, 26(1), 15-31. https://doi.org/10.1080/10242694.2013.848575
7. Eberhardt, M., ve Bond, S. (2009). Cross-section dependence in nonstationary panel models: a novel estimator. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/id/eprint/17692
8. Emirmahmutoglu, F. ve Kose, N. (2011). Testing for Granger causality in heterogeneous mixed panels. Economic Modelling, 28(3), 870-876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2010.10.018

9. Gould, K. A. (2007). The ecological costs of militarization. Peace Review, 19(3), 331-334. https://doi.org/10.1080/10402650701524873
10. Hatemi-J, A., Chang, T., Chen, W. Y., Lin, F. L. ve Gupta, R. (2018). Asymmetric causality between military expenditures and economic growth in top six defense spenders. Quality ve Quantity, 52(3), 1193-1207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0512-9
11. Hickel, J. ve Kallis, G. (2020). Is green growth possible?. New Political Economy, 25(4), 469-486. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2019.1598964
12. Hooks, G. ve Smith, C. L. (2004). The treadmill of destruction: national sacrifice areas and Native Americans. American Sociological Review, 69(4), 558-575. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240406900405 International Institute for Strategic Studies (2021, 24 Haziran). https://www.iiss.org/
13. Isiksal, A. Z. (2021). Testing the effect of sustainable energy and military expenses on environmental degradation: evidence from the states with the highest military expenses. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(16), 20487-20498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11735-7
14. Jorgenson, A. K. (2005). Unpacking international power and the ecological footprints of nations: a quantitative cross-national study. Sociological Perspectives, 48(3), 383-402. https://doi.org/10.1525/sop.2005.48.3.383
15. Jorgenson, A. K., Clark, B. ve Kentor, J. (2010). Militarization and the environment: a panel study of carbon dioxide emissions and the ecological footprints of nations, 1970–2000. Global Environmental Politics, 10(1), 7-29. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep.2010.10.1.7
16. Karadaş, H. A. (2018). Çevresel sorunlar bağlamında yeşil büyüme ve cari açık ilişkisi: Türkiye üzerine bir uygulama (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi). Kırıkkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü. Kırıkkale.
17. Kollias, C., Manolas, G. ve Paleologouc, S. M. (2004). Military expenditure and government debt in Greece: some preliminary empirical findings. Defence and Peace Economics, 15(2), 189-197. https://doi.org/10.1080/1024269032000110559
18. Özsoy, C. E. ve Tosunoğlu, B. T. (2017). GSYH'nin ötesi: ekonomik gelişmenin ölçümünde alternatif metrikler. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 26(1), 285-301. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/cusosbil/issue/31939/351458
19. Pellow, D. N. (2007). Resisting global toxics: transnational movements for environmental justice. Mit Press.
20. Pesaran, M. H., ve Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142(1), 50-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.010
21. Pesaran, M. H. (2021). General diagnostic tests for cross-sectional dependence in panels. Empirical Economics, 60, 13-50. https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs00181-020-01875-7
22. Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross‐section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), 265-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.951
23. SIPRI Military Expenditure Database (2021, 12 Mayıs). https://sipri.org/databases
24. Singer, J. D. ve Keating, J. (1999). Military preparedness, weapon systems and the biosphere: a preliminary impact statement. New Political Science, 21(3), 325-343. https://doi.org/10.1080/07393149908429875
25. Sohag, K., Taşkın, F. D. ve Malik, M. N. (2019). Green economic growth, cleaner energy and militarization: evidence from Turkey. Resources Policy, 63, 101407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2019.101407
26. Solarin, S. A., Al-Mulali, U. ve Ozturk, I. (2018). Determinants of pollution and the role of the military sector: evidence from a maximum likelihood approach with two structural breaks in the USA. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(31), 30949-30961. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-3060-5
27. Swamy, P.A. (1970). Efficient inference in a random coefficient regression model. Econometrica 38(2):311–323. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913012
28. Taşkın, D., Vardar, G. ve Okan, B. (2020). Does renewable energy promote green economic growth in OECD countries?. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 11(4), 771-798. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-04-2019-0192
29. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2021, 20 Haziran). https://www.ipcc.ch/
30. Thinktech (2021, 14 Mayıs). https://thinktech.stm.com.tr/#ThinkTech
31. Ullah, S., Andlib, Z., Majeed, M. T., Sohail, S. ve Chishti, M. Z. (2021). Asymmetric effects of militarization on economic growth and environmental degradation: fresh evidence from Pakistan and India. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(8), 9484-9497. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11142-y
32. UNEP (2011, 04 Haziran). Annual Report. https://www.unep.org/resources/annual-report/unep-2011-annual-report
33. Westerlund, J. ve Edgerton, D. L. (2007). A panel bootstrap cointegration test. Economics Letters, 97(3), 185-190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2007.03.003
34. World Resources Institute (2021, 4 Haziran). https://www.wri.org/