Çifte Kazanç Hipotezinin OECD Ekonomileri İçin Testi: Panel Eşbütünleşme ve Nedensellik Analizi

Yıl 2017, Cilt: 2 Sayı: 4, 1 - 20, 31.01.2017

Mehmet Hanefi Topal

https://doi.org/10.23834/isrjournal.284627

Cited By: 8

Öz

Çevresel vergi reformları son yıllarda oldukça popüler hale geldi. Bunun
asıl sebebi küresel ısınma ve iklim değişikliğinden duyulan endişedir. Pek çok
ülkenin yüzleştiği diğer bir sorun da yüksek düzeyde işsizliktir. Çevreyi
kirliliğini azaltmak için çevresel vergilerin etkin bir mali araç olduğu uzun
yıllardır bilinmektedir. Ancak kamu maliyesi literatürüne yakın dönemde giren
çifte kazanç hipotezi, çevresel vergilerin çevre kirliliğini azaltıcı faydasına
ek olarak istihdamı arttırıcı ikinci bir faydasının da olduğunu iddia
etmektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı 1994-2013 yılı verilerinden yararlanarak bu
iddianın OECD ekonomileri için geçerli olup olmadığını panel eşbütünleşme ve
nedensellik analizleri ile test etmektir. Panel VECM nedensellik analizi
sonuçlarına göre OECD ekonomilerinde kısa dönemde yalnızca çevre vergilerinden
çevre kirliliğine doğru bir nedensellik ilişkisi söz konusu iken uzun dönemde
çevre vergilerinden hem çevre kirliliğine hem de işsizliğe doğru bir
nedensellik ilişkisi mevcuttur. Panel FMOLS eşbütünleşme analizi sonuçlarına
göre OECD ekonomilerinde çevre vergileri hem çevre kirliliğini hem de işsizliği
azaltmaktadır. Ülkelere özgü FMOLS sonuçlarına göre ise çifte kazanç hipotezi
OECD ekonomilerinden yalnızca 14’ü için geçerlidir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Çevre Vergisi, Çevre, Çifte Kazanç, İşsizlik

Testing Double Dividend Hypothesis for OECD Economies: A Panel Cointegration and Causality Analysis

Öz

Environmental tax reforms have become more
popular in recent years. The main reason for this situation is concern about
global warming and climate change. Also, another problem that most countries
have faced is the high level of unemployment. It has been known that
environmental taxes are an efficient fiscal instrument to decrease
environmental pollution for many years. On the other hand, double-dividend
hypothesis that has entered the public finance literature in the recent time
claims two benefits of environmental taxes. In addition to lowering
environmental pollution, it also enhances employment level. The aim of this
paper is to test whether this claim is valid, using panel cointegration and
causality analyses for OECD countries from the 1994-2013 period. According to
Panel VECM causality analysis results, it has only causality relationship from
environmental taxes to environmental pollution in the short run in OECD
economies while  there are causality
relationship from environmental taxes to environmental pollution and
unemployment level in the long run. On the other hand, panel FMOLS cointegration
results show that environmental taxes decrease both environmental pollution and
unemployment level in OECD economies. Finally, country specific results found
that double-dividend hypothesis is valid for 14 OECD economies.    

Anahtar Kelimeler

Environment Tax, Environment, Double Dividend, Unemployment

Kaynakça

• Ay, A., Kızılkaya, O., & Akar, T. (2016). Gelişmekte Olan Ülkelerde Yolsuzluk ve Demokrasi'nin DYY Üzerindeki Etkisi: Ampirik Bir İnceleme. Business and Economics Research Journal, 7(3), 73-88.
• Babiker, M. H., Metcalf, G. E., & Reilly, J. (2003). Tax Distortions and Global Climate Policy, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 46(2), 269-287.
• Bach, S., Kohlhaas, M., Meyer, B., Praetorius, B., & Welsch, H. (2002). The Effects of Environmental Fiscal Reform in Germany: A Simulation Study, Energy Policy, 30(9), 803-811.
• Bor, Y. J., & Huang, Y. (2010). Energy Taxation And The Double Dividend Effect in Taiwan's Energy Conservation Policy—An Empirical Study Using A Computable General Equilibrium Model. Energy Policy, 38(5), 2086-2100.
• Bosello, F., Carraro, C., & Galeotti, M. (2001). The Double Dividend Issue: Modeling Strategies and Empirical Findings. Environment and Development Economics, 6(01), 9-45.
• Bovenberg, A. L. (1999). Green Tax Reforms and The Double Dividend: An Updated Reader's Guide. International Tax and Public Finance, 6(3), 421-443.
• Bovenberg, A. L., & de Mooij, R. A. (1994). Environmental Taxes and Labor-Market Distortions. European Journal of Political Economy, 10(4), 655-683.
• Bovenberg, A. L., & Van der Ploeg, F. (1998). Consequences of Environmental Tax Reform for Unemployment and Welfare. Environmental and Resource Economics, 12(2), 137-150.
• Choi, I. (2001). Unit Root Tests for Panel Data. Journal of International Money and Finance, 20(2), 249-272.
• Conefrey, T., Fitz Gerald, J. D., Valeri, L. M., & Tol, R. S. (2013). The Impact of A Carbon Tax on Economic Growth and Carbon Dioxide Emissions in Ireland. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 56(7), 934-952.
• Devarajan, S., Go, D. S., Robinson, S., & Thierfelder, K. (2011). Tax Policy to Reduce Carbon Emissions in A Distorted Economy: Illustrations From a South Africa CGE Model. The BE Journal of Economic Analysis and Policy, 11(1), 1-22.
• Ergün, S., & Polat, M. A. (2015). OECD Ülkelerinde CO2 Emisyonu, Elektrik Tüketimi ve Büyüme İlişkisi. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, (45), 115-141.
• Fraser, I., & Waschik, R. (2013). The Double Dividend Hypothesis in A CGE Model: Specific Factors and The Carbon Base. Energy Economics, 39, 283-295.
• Fullerton, D. (1997). Environmental Levies and Distortionary Taxation: Comment, American Economic Review, 87 (1), 245–51
• Fullerton, D., & Metcalf, G. E. (1997). Environmental Taxes and The Double-Dividend Hypothesis: Did You Really Expect Something for Nothing. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 73(1), 221-256.
• Giménez, E. L., & Rodríguez, M. (2010). Reevaluating the First and the Second Dividends of Environmental Tax Reforms. Energy Policy, 38(11), 6654-6661.
• Glomm, G., Kawaguchi, D., & Sepulveda, F. (2008). Green Taxes and Double Dividends in A Dynamic Economy. Journal of Policy Modeling, 30(1), 19-32.
• Goulder, L. H. (1995). Environmental Taxation and the Double Dividend: A Reader's Guide. International Tax and Public Finance, 2(2), 157-183.
• Günaydın, İ. (2014). Yeşil Vergiler Çevreyi Koruma ve İşsizliği Azaltma Amaçlarını Aynı Anda Sağlayabilir mi?, içinde Disiplinler Arası Bakış Açısı İle Çevre (Edt. İ. Günaydın & T. Özsoy), İstanbul: Hiperlink, 108-136.
• Hur, G. H. (2000). Double Dividend Hypothesis of Environmental Tax in Republic of Korea: For Sustainable Development. In 2nd International Critical Geography Conference. Available in http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/ download?doi=10.1.1.526.4578&rep=rep1&type=pdf (02.12.2016)
• Im, K. S., Pesaran, M. H., & Shin, Y. (2003). Testing for Unit Roots in Heterogeneous Panels. Journal of Econometrics, 115(1), 53-74.
• Jaeger, W. K. (2012). The Double Dividend Debate. In Handbook of Research on Environmental Taxation (Eds. J. E. Milne & M. S. Andersen) Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, 211-229.
• Kao, C. (1999). Spurious Regression and Residual-Based Tests for Cointegration in Panel Data. Journal of Econometrics, 90(1), 1-44.
• Koskela, E., Schöb, R., & Sinn, H. W. (1998). Pollution, Factor Taxation and Unemployment. International Tax and Public Finance, 5(3), 379-396.
• Lai, C. F. (2016). Examining the Double Dividend Effect of Energy Tax with the Overlapping Generations Model. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 6(1), 53-57.
• Lee, D.R. & Misiolek, W.S., 1986. Substituting Pollution for General Taxation: Some Implications for Efficiency in Pollution Taxation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 13 (4), 339–347.
• Levin, A., Lin, C. F., & Chu, C. S. J. (2002). Unit Root Tests in Panel Data: Asymptotic and Finite-Sample Properties. Journal of Econometrics, 108(1), 1-24.
• Maddala, G. S., & Wu, S. (1999). A Comparative Study of Unit Root Tests With Panel Data and A New Simple Test. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 61(S1), 631-652.
• Manresa, A., & Sancho, F. (2005). Implementing A Double Dividend: Recycling Ecotaxes Towards Lower Labour Taxes. Energy Policy, 33(12), 1577-1585.
• Markandya, A. (2012). Environmental Taxation: What Have We learnt in the last 30 years?. In Environmental Taxes and Fiscal Reform (Eds. L. Castellucci & A. Markandya), Palgrave Macmillan, UK, 9-56.
• Markandya, A., González-Eguino, M., & Escapa, M. (2012). Environmental Fiscal Reform and Unemployment in Spain. In Carbon Pricing, Growth And The Environment (Eds.L. Kreiser, A. Y. Sterling, P. Herrera, J. E. Milne & H. Ashiabor), Cheltenham: Edwar Elgar, 1-16.
• Mathur, A., & Morris, A. C. (2014). Distributional Effects of A Carbon Tax in Broader US Fiscal Reform. Energy Policy, 66, 326-334.
• Nerudová, D., & Dobranschi, M. (2014). Double Dividend Hypothesis: Can it Occur when Tackling Carbon Emissions?. Procedia Economics and Finance, 12, 472-479.
• Nichols, A. L. (1984): Targeting Economic Incentives for Environmental Protection, Cambridge: MIT Press.
• OECD. (1995). The OECD Jobs Study: Taxation, Employment and Unemployment, Paris
• Orlov, A., Grethe, H., & McDonald, S. (2013). Carbon Taxation in Russia: Prospects for A Double Dividend and Improved Energy Efficiency. Energy Economics, 37, 128-140.
• Pedroni, P. (1999). Critical Values for Cointegration Tests in Heterogeneous Panels With Multiple Regressors. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 61(s1), 653-670.
• Pedroni, P. (2000). Fully Modified OLS for Heterogeneous Cointegrated Panels, Nonstationary Panels, Panel Cointegration and Dynamic Panels,15, 93–130.
• Pearce, D. (1991). The Role of Carbon Taxes in Adjusting to Global Warming, Economic Journal, 101 (407), 938–48.
• Pigou, A. C. (1920), The Economics of Welfare, Palgrave MacMillan, London.
• Sandmo, A. (1975). Optimal Taxation in the Presence of Externalities. Swedish Journal of Economics 77(1), 86-98.
• Sartzetakis, E. S., & Tsigaris, P. D. (2009). Uncertainty and The Double Dividend Hypothesis. Environment and Development Economics, 14(5), 565-585.
• Saveyn, B., Van Regemorter, D., & Ciscar, J. C. (2011). Economic Analysis of The Climate Pledges of The Copenhagen Accord for The EU and Other Major Countries. Energy Economics, 33, 34-40.
• Schöb, R. (2003). The Double Dividend Hypothesis of Environmental Taxes: A Survey, CESifo Group WP No. 946 , Munich.
• Schöb, R. (2009), Choosing The Right Instrument to Reap An Additional Employment Dividend, Frei Universitat School of Business And Economics, Discussion Paper, No. 2009/10.
• Sasmaz, M. U. (2016). Validity of Double Dividend Hypothesis in EU-15 Countries. Global Journal on Humanities and Social Sciences, 4, 30-36.
• Takeda, S. (2007). The Double Dividend From Carbon Regulations in Japan. Journal of The Japanese And International Economies, 21(3), 336-364.
• Terkla, D. (1984). The Efficiency Value of Effluent Tax Revenues. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 11, 107-123.
• Tullock, G. (1967). Excess Benefit. Water Resources Research, 3, 643-644.
• Ulucak, R. (2011). Çevreyi Korumanın Makroekonomik Değişkenler Üzerindeki Maliyetleri ve Çevresel Kalite-Ekonomik Güç İkilemi, Uludağ Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 30(2), 51-69.
• Vandyck, T., & Van Regemorter, D. (2014). Distributional And Regional Economic Impact of Energy Taxes in Belgium. Energy Policy, 72, 190-203.
• Van Heerden, J., Gerlagh, R., Blignaut, J., Horridge, M., Hess, S., Mabugu, R. E. E., & Chitiga, M. (2005). Fighting CO2 Pollution and Poverty While Promoting Growth: Searching For Triple Dividends in South Africa. Available in http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=849245, (02.12.2016).
• Yardımcıoğlu, F., & Gülmez, A. (2013). Türk Cumhuriyetlerinde İhracat ve Ekonomik Büyüme İlişkisi: Panel Eşbütünleşme ve Panel Nedensellik Analizi. Bilgi Ekonomisi ve Yönetimi Dergisi, 8(1), 145-161.
• Zhang, Z., Zhang, A., Wang, D., Li, A., & Song, H. (2017). How to Improve The Performance of Carbon Tax in China?. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, 2060-2072.