Etkisinin ötesinde, siyasette kadınları güçlendiren unsurların C02 azaltımı üzerine bir incelemesi: ekonometrik bir yaklaşımdan

Öz

Aynı alandaki erkek akranlarının aksine, kadınların çevreye katılımı bağlamında Cinsiyet farklılaşmasının varlığını göstermek, biraz paradoksal olsa da karmaşık olmuştur. Mevcut makale, bu genel eğilimi alternatif bir boyuttan incelemektedir. Politikadaki kadınların geriye dönük olarak C02 emisyonlarını azaltan politikalar benimsemelerine yardımcı olan ve onları güçlendiren faktörlere odaklandık. Bunu yaparken, 2002'den 2021'e kadar İskandinav ve Orta Avrupa ülkeleri seçildi. Sabit etki, rastgele etki ve niceliksel regresyon analizi yapılmıştır. Bulgular, gerçekten de parlamentoda daha fazla sayıda kadının C02 azalmasına yol açtığını, oysa yolsuzluğun olmaması, akademik özgürlük, temel haklara saygı ve Hükümetin etkinliği gibi değişkenlerin kadınların misyonuna yardımcı olarak önemli bir etki gösterdiğini gösterdi. Tersine, düzenleyici kalite ve örgütlenme özgürlüğü, C02 düzeyini hafifleten kadınları kucaklayıcı politikalara katkıda bulunmaz. Kantil regresyon, tüm değişkenlerin (siyasetteki kadınlar da dahil) CO2 miktarlarını uygun şekilde etkilediğini bildirdi, ancak bu toplu etki yalnızca üst yüzdelik dilimde gerçekleşti.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• C02 emission
• Women in politics
• Environmental governance
• quantile regression
• Panel data

Beyond the effect, an examination of elements empowering women in politics on C02 reduction: from an econometric approach

Öz

Demonstrating the existence of Gender differentiation in the context of women's involvement in the environment in contrast to their male peers in the same field, have been complex if somewhat paradoxical. The current paper examines this general trend from an alternative dimension. We focused on factors that assist and empower women in politics to adopt policies that retroactively reduce the level of C02 emissions. In doing so, Nordic and Central European countries from 2002 to 2021 were selected. A fixed effect, random effect, and quantile regression analysis have been performed. The findings demonstrated that indeed, a greater number of women holding seats in parliament led to C02 reduction, whereas variables such as the Absence of corruption, academic freedom, respect for fundamental rights, and Government effectiveness showed a significant effect by assisting in women's mission. Reversely, regulatory quality and freedom of association don’t contribute to women's embracing policies mitigating the level of C02. The quantile regression reported that all the variables (also women in politics) correspondingly affect C02 quantities, nevertheless, this collective effect only materializes in the upper percentile.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• C02 emission
• Women in politics
• Environmental governance
• quantile regression
• Panel data

Kaynakça

1. Albulescu, C. T., Tiwari, A. K., Yoon, S. M., & Kang, S. H. (2019). FDI, income, and environmental pollution in Latin America: Replication and extension using panel quantiles regression analysis. Energy Economics, 84, 104504 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2019.104504.
2. Basarić, V., Vujičić, A., Simić, J. M., Bogdanović, V., & Saulić, N. (2016). Gender and age differences in the travel behavior–a Novi Sad case study. Transportation research procedia, 14, 4324-4333 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2016.05.354.
3. Bell, S. E., & Braun, Y. A. (2010). Coal, identity, and the gendering of environmental justice activism in central Appalachia. Gender & Society, 24(6), 794-813 https://doi.org/10.1177/089124321038727.
4. Buckingham, S. (2010a). Call in the women. Nature, 468(7323), 502-502 https://doi.org/10.1038/468502a.
5. Buckingham, S., Reeves, D., & Batchelor, A. (2005b). Wasting women: The environmental justice of including women in municipal waste management. Local Environment, 10(4), 427-444. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549830500160974
6. Canay, I. A. (2011). A simple approach to quantile regression for panel data. The econometrics journal, 14(3), 368-386 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1368-423X.2011.00349.x.
7. Cheng, C., Ren, X., Wang, Z., & Shi, Y. (2018). The impacts of non-fossil energy, economic growth, energy consumption, and oil price on carbon intensity: evidence from a panel quantile regression analysis of EU 28. Sustainability, 10(11), 4067. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10114067
8. Denton, F. (2000). Climate change vulnerability, impacts, and adaptation: Why does gender matter? Gender & Development, 10(2), 10-20 https://doi.org/10.1080/13552070215903.

9. Dietz, T., Kalof, L., & Stern, P. C. (2002). Gender, values, and environmentalism. Social science quarterly, 83(1), 353-364 https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6237.00088.
10. DiRienzo, C. E., & Das, J. (2019). Women in government, environment, and corruption. Environmental Development,, 30, 103-113 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2019.04.006.
11. Eisler, A. D., Eisler, H., & Yoshida, M. (2003). Perception of human ecology: cross-cultural and gender comparisons. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(1), 89-101 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00083-X.
12. Ergas, C., & York, R. (2012). Women’s status and carbon dioxide emissions: A quantitative cross-national analysis. Social Science Research, 41(4), 965-976 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.03.008. Errington, S. (1990). " The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology, and the Scientific Revolution". New York: Harper One.
13. Fielding, K. S., Head, B. W., Laffan, W., Western, M., & Hoegh-Guldberg, O. (2012). Australian politicians’ beliefs about climate change: political partisanship and political ideology. Environmental Politics, 21(5), 712-733 https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2012.698887.
14. Fraune, C. (2016). The politics of speeches, votes, and deliberations: Gendered legislating and energy policy-making in Germany and the United States. Energy Research & Social Science, 19, 134-141 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2016.06.007.
15. Fredriksson, P. G., & Wang, L. (2011a). Sex and environmental policy in the US House of Representatives. Economics Letters,, 113(3), 228-230 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2011.07.019.
16. Fredriksson, P. G., Vollebergh, H. R., & Dijkgraaf, E. (2004b). Corruption and energy efficiency in OECD countries: theory and evidence. Journal of Environmental Economics and management, 47(2), 207-231 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2003.08.001.
17. Gani, A. (2012). The relationship between good governance and carbon dioxide emissions: evidence from developing economies. Journal of Economic Development, 37(1), 77. available at https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/986f/1210c075c6cee11a2c4ca431efe5458b692a.pdf.
18. Jensen, T. (2000). Risk perceptions among members in parliament: economy, ecologyand social order. In . In:
19. Esaiasson, P., Heidar, K. (Eds.), Beyond westminster andcongress, the Nordic experience. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Press.
20. Jones, M. P. (1997). Legislator gender and legislator policy priorities in the Argentine Chamber of Deputies and the United States House of Representatives. Policy Studies Journal, 25(4), 613-629 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1997.tb00045.x.
21. Kennedy, E. H., & Kmec, J. (2018). Reinterpreting the gender gap in household pro-environmental behaviour. Environmental Sociology, 4(3), 299-310 https://doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2018.1436891.
22. Kronsell, A., Smidfelt Rosqvist, L., & Winslott Hiselius, L. (2016). Achieving climate objectives in transport policy by including women and challenging gender norms: The Swedish case. International journal of sustainable transportation, 10(8), 703-711.
23. Lv, Z., & Deng, C. (2019). Does women's political empowerment matter for improving the environment? A heterogeneous dynamic panel analysis. Sustainable Development, 27(4), 603-612.
24. McCright, A. M. (2010). The effects of gender on climate change knowledge and concern in the American public. Population and Environment, 32(1), 66-87 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11111-010-0113-1.
25. McKinney, L. (2014). Gender, democracy, development, and overshoot: a cross-national analysis. Population and Environment, 36(2), 193-218.
26. Mujeed, S., Li, S., Jabeen, M., Nassani, A. A., Askar, S. E., Zaman, K., ... & Jambari, H. (2021). Technowomen: Women’s Autonomy and Its Impact on Environmental Quality. Sustainability, 13(4), 1611 https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041611.
27. Nightingale, A. (2006). The nature of gender: work, gender, and environment. Environment and planning D: Society and space, 24(2), 165-185 https://doi.org/10.1068/d01k.
28. Norgaard, K., & York, R. (2005). Gender equality and state environmentalism. Gender & Society, 19(4), 506-522.
29. OTTUH, P. (2020). A critique of eco-feminism: An attempt towards environmental solution. International Journal of Environmental Pollution and Environmental Modelling, 3(4), 167-179
30. Rachel’s Network. (n.d.). When women lead: a decade of women’s environmental voting records in Congress. accessed to 2 October, available at: https://rachelsnetwork.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/WhenWomenLead.pdf.
31. Reingold, B. (2003). Representing women: Sex, gender, and legislative behavior in Arizona and California. Univ of North Carolina Press.
32. Salahodjaev, R., & Jarilkapova, D. (2020). Women in parliament and deforestation: cross-country evidence. Journal for Nature Conservation, 55, 125830 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2020.125830.
33. Saleem, H., Jiandong, W., Aldakhil, A. M., Nassani, A. A., Abro, M. M. Q., Zaman, K., ... & Rameli, M. R. M. (2018). Socio-economic and environmental factors influenced the United Nations healthcare sustainable agenda: evidence from a panel of selected Asian and African countrie. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(14), 14435-14460.
34. Shandra, J. M., Shandra, C. L., & London, B. (2008). Women, non-governmental organizations, and deforestation: a cross-national study. Population and environment, 30(1), 48-72.
35. Sherwood, B., & Wang, L. (2016). Partially linear additive quantile regression in ultra-high dimension. The Annals of Statistics, 44(1), 288-317. doi: 10.1214/15-AOS1367
36. Silva, A. M., Campos, P. H., Mattos, I. E., Hajat, S., LacerdaSilva, A. M., Campos, P. H., Mattos, I. E., Hajat, S., Lacerda. (2019). Environmental exposure to pesticides and breast cancer in a region of intensive agribusiness activity in brazil: a case-control study. International journal of environmental research and public health, 16(20), 3951 https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16203951.
37. Stevens, C. (2010). Are Women Key to Sustainable Development? Sustainable Development Insights. go.nature.com/qexuub accessed 26 September 2022.
38. Sundström, A., & McCright, A. M. (2014). Gender differences in environmental concern among Swedish citizens and politicians. Environmental politics, 23(6), 1082-1095 https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2014.921462.
39. Terry, G. (2009). No climate justice without gender justice: an overview of the issues. Gender & Development, 17(1), 5-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552070802696839
40. Thombs, R. P. (2021). In-and-Beyond State Power: How Political Equality Moderates the Economic Growth-CO2 Emissions Relationship, 1990-2014. The Sociological Quarterly, 62(3), 528-547 https://doi.org/10.1080/00380253.2020.1776174.
41. uz Zaman, Q., Wang, Z., Zaman, S., & Rasool, S. F. (2021). Investigating the nexus between education expenditure, female employers, renewable energy consumption and CO2 emission. Evidence from China. Journal of Cleaner Production,, 312, 127824 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127824.
42. Wängnerud, L. (2009a). Women in parliaments: Descriptive and substantive representation. Annual Review of Political Science, 12(1), 51-69 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.053106.123839.
43. Wängnerud, L., & Sundell, A. (2012b). Do politics matter? Women in Swedish local elected assemblies 1970–2010 and gender equality in outcomes. European Political Science Review, 4(1), 97-120 .https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773911000087.
44. Warren, K. J. (2018). Taking empirical data seriously: An ecofeminist philosophical perspective. In In Living with Contradictions (pp. pp. 640-650). Routledge.
45. Winter, G. (2022). The Intergenerational Effect of Fundamental Rights: A Contribution of the German Federal Constitutional Court to Climate Protection. Journal of Environmental Law, 34(1), 209-221 https://academic.oup.com/jel/article/34/1/209/6420385; the case file can be accessed in english here: https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/EN/2021/03/rs20210324_1bvr265618en.html.
46. Zhu, H., Duan, L., Guo, Y., & Yu, K. (2016). The effects of FDI, economic growth and energy consumption on carbon emissions in ASEAN-5: evidence from panel quantile regression. Economic Modelling, 58, 237-248 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2016.05.003.