Politik İstikrarın Çevre Üzerindeki Etkisi: Türk Devletleri Teşkilatı Örneği

Öz

Bu çalışmada, Türk Devletleri Teşkilatı üyesi ve gözlemcisi olan ülkelere (Azerbaycan, Kazakistan, Kırgızistan, Özbekistan, Türkiye, Macaristan ve Türkmenistan) yönelik 2002-2021 dönemi için politik istikrar ve çevre arasındaki ilişki panel Otoregresif Dağıtılmış Gecikme (ARDL) yöntemi ile incelenmiştir. Çevreyi temsilen ekolojik ayak izi değişkeni kullanılmıştır. Ekonomik büyüme, yenilebilir enerji tüketimi ve politik istikrar açıklayıcı değişkenler olarak modele dâhil edilmiştir. Çalışmadan elde edilen bulgular, politik istikrarda meydana gelen artışın kısa ve uzun dönemde ekolojik ayak izini azalttığını ortaya koymaktadır. Dolayısıyla bulgulardan hareketle politik istikrarın, çevre kalitesini artmasına katkı sağladığı görülmektedir. Diğer önemli bulgular ise, ekonomik büyüme ekolojik ayak izini artırırken, yenilenebilir enerji tüketimi ise ekolojik ayak izini azaltmaktadır. Bu bulgular doğrultusunda, Türk Devletleri Teşkilatı üyesi ve gözlemcisi olan ülkelerde politik istikrarın devamlılık göstermesi ve yenilenebilir enerji tüketiminin arttırılması çevre kalitesinin artırılmasına yardımcı olabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Çevre Kalitesi
• Politik İstikrar
• Ekonomik Büyüme
• Yenilebilir Enerji Tüketimi
• Panel ARDL

The Impact of Political Stability on the Environment: The Case of the Organization of Turkic States

Öz

In this study, the relationship between political stability and the environment for the period 2002-2021 for the member and observer countries of the Organization of Turkic States (Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Türkiye, Hungary, and Turkmenistan) is examined with the panel Autoregressive Distributed Lag (ARDL) method. The ecological footprint variable is used to represent the environment. Economic growth, renewable energy consumption, and political stability are included in the model as explanatory variables. The findings of the study reveal that an increase in political stability reduces the ecological footprint in the short and long run. Therefore, the findings suggest that political stability contributes to the improvement of environmental quality. Another important finding is that while economic growth increases the ecological footprint, renewable energy consumption decreases the ecological footprint. In line with these findings, maintaining political stability and increasing renewable energy consumption in the member and observer countries of the Organization of Turkic States can help improve environmental quality.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Environmental Quality
• Political Stability
• Economic Growth
• Renewable Energy Consumption
• Panel ARDL

Kaynakça

1. Abid, M. (2016). Impact of Economic, financial, and institutional factors on CO2 Emissions: Evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa economies. Utilities Policy, 41, 85-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2016.06.009
2. Acar, A. (2020). The effects of political stability on economic growth of the presidental government system. Uluslararası Ekonomi ve Siyaset Bilimleri Akademik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 3(9), 18-31.
3. Adebayo, T. S. (2022). Renewable energy consumption and environmental sustainability in Canada: Does political stability make a difference? Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-16. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-20008-4
4. Adebayo, T. S., Akadiri, S. Saint, Uhunamure, S. E., Altuntas., M. ve Shale, K. (2022). Does political stability contribute to environmental sustainability? Evidence from the most politically stable economies, Heliyon, 8(12), e12479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e12479
5. Agheli, L. ve Taghvaee, V. M. (2022). Political stability effect on environment and weak sustainability in Asian countries. Sustainability Analytics and Modeling, 2, 100007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.samod.2022.100007
6. Akalin, G. ve Erdogan, S. (2021). Does democracy help reduce environmental degradation? Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 7226-7235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11096-1
7. Al-Mulali, U. ve Ozturk, I. (2015). The effect of energy consumption, urbanization, trade openness, ındustrial output, and the political stability on the environmental degradation in the MENA (Middle East and North African) region. Energy, 84, 382-389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.03.004
8. Ashraf, J. (2022). Do political risk and globalization undermine environmental quality? Empirical evidence from Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) countries. Managerial and Decision Economics, 43(8), 3647-3664. https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.3620

9. Asif, K., Sabir, S. ve Qayyum, U. (2024). Corruption, political ınstability, and environmental degradation in South Asia: A comparative analysis of carbon footprint and ecological footprint. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 15(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-023-01133-y
10. Asongu, S. A. ve Odhiambo, N. M. (2020). Governance, CO2 emissions, and ınclusive human development in Sub-Saharan Africa. Energy Exploration & Exploitation, 38(1), 18-36. https://doi.org/10.1177/0144598719835594
11. Ayhan, F., Kartal, M. T., Kılıç Depren, S. ve Depren, Ö. (2023). Asymmetric effect of economic policy uncertainty, political stability, energy consumption, and economic growth on CO2 emissions: Evidence from G-7 countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Researh, 30, 47422- 47437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-25665-7
12. Blackburne, E. F., ve Frank, M. W. (2007). Estimation of nonstationary heterogeneous panels. The Stata Journal, 7(2), 197-208.
13. Breusch, T. S. ve Pagan, A. R. (1980). The lagrange multiplier test and ıts applications to model specification in econometrics. The Review of Economic Studies, 47(1), 239-253. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297111
14. Can Gaberli, Y., Gaberli, Ü. ve Güler, M. E. (2022). Impact of political stability and absence of violence/terrorism on tourism: A panel co- integration analysis. Journal of Management and Economics Research, 20(4), 387-400. https://doi.org/10.11611/yead.1168124
15. Cengiz, O. (2021). N-11 ülkelerinde politik istikrarın çevresel bozulma üzerindeki etkisi. Akademik Yaklaşımlar Dergisi, 12(1), 1-17.
16. Cohen, S. (2021). Political stability and environmental sustainability. 20 Mart 2024 tarihinde https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/01/11/political-stability- environmental-sustainability/ adresinden erişildi.
17. Cole, M. A. (2007). Corruption, income and the environment: An empirical analysis. Ecological Economics, 62(3-4), 637-647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.08.003
18. Danish, H. S., Baloch, M. A., Mahmood, N. ve Zhang, J. W. (2019). Linking economic growth and ecological footprint through human capital and biocapacity. Sustainable Cities and Society, 47, 101516.
19. Danish. ve Ulucak, R. (2020). The pathway toward pollution mitigation: Does institutional quality make a difference? Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(8), 3571-3583. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2597
20. Dasgupta, S., De Cian, E. ve Verdolini, E. (2016). The political economy of energy innovation. 2016/17. Helsinki: UNU-WIDER.
21. De Hoyos, R. E. ve Sarafidis, V. (2006). Testing for cross-sectional dependence in panel-data models. The Stata Journal, 6(4), 482-496.
22. Farzin, Y. H. ve Bond, C. A. (2006). Democracy and environmental quality. Journal of Development Economics, 81(1), 213-235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2005.04.003
23. Fredriksson, P. G. ve Svensson, J. (2003). Political instability, corruption and policy information: The case of environmental policy. Journal of Public Economics, 87, 1383-1405. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047- 2727(02)00036-1
24. Global Footprint Network. (2024). Ecological Footprint, 10 Mart 2024 tarihinde https://www.footprintnetwork.org/our-work/ecological- footprint/ adresinden erişildi.
25. Gani, A. (2012). The relationship between good governance and carbon dioxide emissions: Evidence from developing economies. Journal of Economic Development, 37(1), 77-93.
26. Güney, T. (2015). Environmental sustainability and pressure groups. Quality & Quantity, 49(6), 2331-2344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-014- 0116-6
27. Hacıimamoğlu, T. ve Sungur, O. (2024). How do economic growth, renewable energy consumption, and political stability affect environmental sustainability in the United States? Insights from a modified ecological footprint model. Journal of Knowledge Economy. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-024-01953-6
28. Hill, M. (2010). Understanding Environmental Pollution. New York: Cambridge University Press. p534.
29. Hughes, L. ve Lipscy, P. Y. (2013). The politics of energy. Annual Review of Political Science, 16, 449-469. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci- 072211-143240
30. Jacobsson, S. ve Lauber, V. (2006). The politics and policy of energy system transformation–explaining the German diffusion of renewable energy technology, Energy Policy, 34, 256-276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2004.08.029
31. Kartal, M. T., Kılıç Depren, S., Kirikkaleli, D., Depren, O. ve Khan, U. (2022). Asymmetric and longrun impact of political stability on consumption- based carbon dioxide emissions in Finland: Evidence from nonlinear and Fourier-based approaches. Journal of Environmental Management, 321, 116043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116043
32. Kartal, M. T., Kılıç Depren, S. ve Kirikkaleli, D. (2023). Asymmetric effect of political stability on production-based CO2 emissions in the UK: long- run evidence from nonlinear ARDL and frequency domain causality. Environmental Science and Pollution Researh, 30, 33886-33897. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-24550-z
33. Kılıç Depren, S., Kartal, M. T., Kirikkaleli, D. ve Depren, Ö. (2023). Effect of political stability on environmental quality: Long-run and asymmetric evidence from Iceland by non-linear approaches. Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health, 16, 1407-1417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-023- 01351-y
34. Kirikkaleli, D. ve Osmanlı, A. (2023). The impact of political stability on environmental quality in the long run: The case of Turkey. Sustainability, 15(11), 9056. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15119056
35. Kunawotor., M. E., Bokpin, G. A. ve Barnor, C. (2020). Drivers of income inequality in Africa: Does institutional quality matter? African Development Review, 32(4), 718-729. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467- 8268.12473
36. Mrabet, Z., Alsamara, M., Mimouni, K. ve Mnasri, A. (2021). Can human development and political stability ımprove environmental quality? New evidence from The MENA region. Economic Modelling, 94, 28-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2020.09.021
37. Muhammad, S. ve Long, X. (2021), Rule of law CO2 emissions: A comparative analysis across 65 Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) countries. Journal of Clear Production, 279, 123539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123539
38. Nathaniel, S. P., Murshed, M. ve Bassim, M. (2021). The nexus between economic growth, energy use, ınternational trade and ecological footprints: The role of environmental regulations in N11 countries. Energy, Ecology and Environment, 6, 496-512. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40974-020-00205-y
39. Oğuz, İ. H. (2019). Politik istikrar ve çevresel sürdürebilirlik. International Journal of Business and Economic Studies, 1(1), 1-11.
40. Pata, U. K., Yilanci, V., Hussain, B. ve Naqvi, S. A. A. (2022). Analyzing the role of income inequality and political stability in environmental degradation: Evidence from South Asia. Gondwana Research, 107, 13-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2022.02.009
41. Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y. ve Smith, R. P. (1999). Pooled mean group estimation of dynamic heterogeneous panels. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 94(446), 621-634. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2670182
42. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. Cambridge Working Papers in Economics, 435, 1-39.
43. 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
44. 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
45. Pesaran, M. H., Ullah, A. ve Yamagata, T. (2008). A bias adjusted Lm test of error cross section ındependence. Econometrics Journal, 11, 105-127. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23116064
46. Purcel, A. A. (2019). Does political stability hinder pollution? Evidence from developing states. The Economic Research Guardian, 9(2), 75-98.
47. Purcel, A. A. (2020). Environmental degradation and political stability: A comparative study of civil and common law developing economies. Review of Economic Studies and Research Virgil Madgearu, 13(1), 93-113.
48. Rizk, R. ve Slimane, M. B. (2018). Modelling the relationship between poverty, environment, and ınstitutions: A panel data study. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25, 31459-31473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-3051-6
49. Sarafidis, V. ve Wansbeek, T. (2012). Cross-sectional dependence in panel data analysis. Econometric Reviews, 31(5), 483-531. https://doi.org/10.1080/07474938.2011.611458
50. Sohail, M. T., Majeed, M. T., Shaikh, P. A. ve Andlib, Z. (2022). Environmental costs of political ınstability in Pakistan: Policy options for clean energy consumption and environment. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(17), 25184-25193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17646-5
51. Su, Z.-W., Umar, M., Kirikkaleli, D. ve Adebayo, T. S. (2021). Role of political risk to achieve carbon neutrality: Evidence from Brazil. Journal of Environmental Management, 298, 113463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113463
52. Tamazian, A. ve Bhaskara Rao, B. (2010). Do economic, financial and institutional developments matter for environmental degradation? Evidence from transitional economies. Energy Economics, 32, 137-145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2009.04.004
53. Theglobaleconomy. (2024). Political stability, 10 Mart 2024 tarihinde https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/ adresinden erişildi.
54. Tugcu, C. T. (2018). Panel data analysis in the energy-growth nexus (EGN). In A. N. Menegaki (Ed.), The economics and econometrics of the energy-growth nexus (pp. 255-271). Amsterdam: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-812746-9.00008-0
55. Turkicstates. (2024). 30 Mayıs 2024 tarihinde https://www.turkicstates.org/tr/organizasyon-tarihcesi adresinden erişildi.
56. Ulucak, R. ve Lin, D. (2017). Persistence of policy shocks to ecological footprint of the USA. Ecological Indicators, 80, 337-343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.05.020
57. Ursavaş, N. (2022). OECD ülkelerinde demokrasinin çevresel bozulma üzerindeki etkisi. Ekoist: Journal of Econometrics and Statistics, 37, 213-235. https://doi.org/10.26650/ekoist.2022.37.1118226
58. Victor, P. A. (2017). Pollution: Economy and Environment. UK: Routledge.
59. Vu, T. V. ve Huang, D. C. (2020). Economic development, globalization, political risk and CO2 emission: The case of Vietnam. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 7(12), 21-31. https://doi.org/10.13106/JAFEB.2020.VOL7.NO12.021
60. World Bank (2024). GDP per capita (constant 2015 US$) ve Renewable energy consumption (% of total final energy consumption), 10 Mart 2024 tarihinde https://data.worldbank.org/indicator adresinden erişildi.