Politika Sıkılığı, Çevresel Dönüşüm: Asya-Pasifik’te Panel Veri Analizi

Öz

Bu çalışma, 2002-2021 döneminde sekiz Asya-Pasifik ülkesinde kişi başına düşen CO₂ emisyonlarını Panel ARDL ve Mean Group (MG) modelleriyle incelemektedir. Bulgu-lar, ekonomik büyüme, enerji yoğunluğu ve sanayi katma değerinin CO₂ emisyonlarını artırıcı etkiler gösterdiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Yenilenebilir enerji tüketimi emisyon-ları azaltıcı yönde etkilerken, çevresel politika sıkılığının genel panel analizi sonu-cunda istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir etkisi bulunamamıştır. Ancak, bireysel ülke ana-lizlerinde, bu politikanın CO₂ emisyonları üzerinde yalnızca Güney Kore'de anlamlı bir azalış yarattığı görülmüştür. Bu durum, çevre düzenlemelerinin etkinliğinin ülkeye özgü faktörlere bağlı olduğunu vurgulamaktadır. Sonuçlar, düşük karbonlu bir büyüme için enerji verimliliği ve yenilenebilir enerji yatırımlarının yanı sıra, her ülkenin kendi koşullarına uyarlanmış esnek çevre stratejilerinin önemini göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Karbon Emisyonları
• Panel ARDL
• Çevresel Düzenlemeler
• Asya-Pasifik Bölgesi

Determinants of CO2 Emissions in Selected RCEP Countries Panel ARDL Analysis of Regulatory Quality, Energy Consumption, And Economic Growth

Öz

This study examines the determinants of per capita CO₂ emissions in eight Asia-Pacific countries from 2002–2021 using Panel ARDL and Mean Group (MG) models. The findings reveal that economic growth, energy intensity, and industrial value-added have an increasing effect on CO₂ emissions. While renewable energy consumption has an emissions-reducing effect, the general panel analysis shows that the effect of envi-ronmental policy stringency is not statistically significant. However, individual coun-try analyzes indicate that this policy created a significant reduction in CO₂ emissions only in South Korea. These highlights that the effectiveness of environmental regula-tions depends on country-specific factors. The results emphasize the importance of energy efficiency policies, renewable energy investments, and flexible environmental strategies tailored to each country's unique conditions for achieving low-carbon growth.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Carbon Emissions
• Panel ARDL
• Environmental Regulations
• Asia-Pacific Region

Kaynakça

1. Abdelkawy, N. A., & Alzuwaidi, L. (2025). Institutional quality, energy efficiency, and natural gas: Explaining CO2 emissions in the GCC, 2000–2023. Sustainability, 17(15), 6746. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156746
2. Akın, C. S. (2014). Yabancı sermaye yatırımlarının CO₂ emisyonu üzerine olan etkisi: Dinamik panel veri analizi. Akademik Bakış Uluslararası Hakemli Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 44.
3. Ambec, S., & Barla, P. (2002). A theoretical foundation of the Porter hypothesis. Economics Letters, 75(3), 355-360.
4. Ampedu, R., Wang, X., Jotham, K., & Mensah, R. (2025). The tug of war: Will regulatory quality and green innovation outpace carbon emissions? Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 11(2), 100555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joitmc.2025.100555
5. Barış, S. (2019). Çevresel politika sıkılığı verimlilik düzeyini etkiliyor mu?. İçinde 3. Uluslararası Ünidokap Karadeniz Sempozyumu “Sürdürülebilir Tarım Ve Çevre” (s. 897-905). Tokat.
6. Bitat, A. (2017). Environmental regulation and eco-innovation: The Porter hypothesis refined. Eurasian Business Review, 8, 299-321. https://doi.org/10.1007/S40821-017-0084-6
7. Broberg, T., Marklund, P., & Samakovlis, E. (2013). Testing the Porter hypothesis: The effects of environmental investments on efficiency in Swedish industry. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 40, 43-56. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11123-012-0335-6
8. Chen, Y. P., Zhuo, Z., Huang, Z., & Li, W. (2022). Environmental regulation and ESG of SMEs in China: Porter hypothesis re-tested. Science of the Total Environment, 850, 157967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157967

9. Damak, O. I., & Güngör, H. (2025). The effects of rule of law, regulatory quality, and R&D on Japan's environmental sustainability. Sustainable Development, 33(2), 2278–2291. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.3233
10. D'agostino, L. M. (2015). How MNEs respond to environmental regulation: Integrating the Porter hypothesis and the pollution haven hypothesis. Economia Politica, 32, 245-269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40888-015-0010-2
11. Dou, J., & Han, X. (2019). How does the industry mobility affect pollution industry transfer in China: Empirical test on pollution haven hypothesis and Porter hypothesis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 217, 105-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.147
12. Dumitrescu, E. I., & Hurlin, C. (2012). Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Economic Modelling, 29(4), s. 1450-1460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2012.02.014
13. Elmas, Y., & Kotil, E. (2017). Küresel gelirden payı artan ülkelerde ticaretin karbondioksit emisyonlarına etkisi. Ekonomik ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 13(1), 79-101.
14. European Commission. (2019). Going climate-neutral by 2050 – A strategic long-term vision for a prosperous, modern, competitive and climate-neutral EU economy. Publications Office. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2834/02074
15. European Parliament & Council of the European Union. (2021). Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2021 establishing the framework for achieving climate neutrality and amending Regulations (EC) No 401/2009 and (EU) 2018/1999 (“European Climate Law”). Official Journal of the European Union, L 243/1. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/1119/oj
16. Ford, J. A., Steen, J., & Verreyne, M. L. (2014). How environmental regulations affect innovation in the Australian oil and gas industry: Going beyond the Porter hypothesis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 84, 204-213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.12.062
17. Gujarati, D. N. (2015). Econometrics by example (2nd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.
18. Gürlek, M. (2021). Kurumsal baskıların çevresel uygulamalar ve firma performansı üzerindeki etkileri: Bir yeni kuramsal kuram perspektifi. Alanya Akademik Bakış, 5(1), 393-418.
19. Hoechle, D. (2007). Robust standard errors for panel regressions with cross-sectional dependence. The Stata Journal, 7(3), 281–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867x0700700301
20. Jaffe, A., & Palmer, K. (1997). Environmental regulation and innovation: A panel data study. Review of Economics and Statistics, 79(4), 610-619. [suspicious link removed]
21. Lanoie, P., Lucchetti, J. L., Johnstone, N., & Ambec, S. (2011). Environmental policy, innovation and performance: New insights on the Porter hypothesis. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 20(3), 803-842. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9134.2011.00301.x
22. Lee, Y. M., & Wang, K. M. (2015). Dynamic heterogeneous panel analysis of the correlation between stock prices and exchange rates. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 28(1), 749-772. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677x.2015.1084889
23. Murty, M. N., & Kumar, S. (n.d.). Win–win opportunities and environmental regulation: Testing of Porter hypothesis for Indian manufacturing industries. Journal of Environmental Management, 67(2), 139-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4797(02)00203-7
24. OECD. (2024). OECD Environmental Policy Stringency Index. OECD Data Explorer. https://data-explorer.oecd.org/vis?lc=en&tm=Environmental%20policy&pg=0&snb=94&df[ds]=DSdisseminatefinaldmz&df[id]=DSD_EPS%40DF_EPS&df[ag]=OECD.ECO.MAD&df[vs]=1.0&dq=.A..EPS&lom=LastNPeriods&lo=5&to[Time_Period]=False
25. Onofrei, M., Vatamanu, F. A., & Cigu, E. (2022). The relationship between economic growth and CO₂ emissions in EU countries: A cointegration analysis. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10(934885). https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.934885
26. Özbuğday, F. C., & Erbas, B. C. (2015). How effective are energy efficiency and renewable energy in curbing CO2 emissions in the long run? A heterogeneous panel data analysis. Energy, 82, 734–745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.01.084
27. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross-section dependence in panels (IZA Discussion Paper No. 1240). Institute of Labor Economics (IZA). https://docs.iza.org/dp1240.pdf
28. Pesaran, M. H., & Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142, 50-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.010
29. Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y., & Smith, R. P. (1999). Pooled mean group estimation of dynamic heterogeneous panels. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 94(446), 621-634.
30. Rahman, M. M., & Alam, K. (2022). CO2 emissions in Asia–Pacific region: Do energy use, economic growth, financial development, and international trade have detrimental effects? Sustainability, 14(9), 5420. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095420
31. Ramanathan, R., He, Q., Black, A., Ghobadian, A., & Gallear, D. (2017). Environmental regulations, innovation and firm performance: A revisit of the Porter hypothesis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 155(2), 79–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.116
32. Rexhäuser, S., & Rammer, C. (2013). Environmental innovations and firm profitability: Unmasking the Porter hypothesis. Environmental and Resource Economics, 57, 145–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10640-013-9671-X
33. Rubashkina, Y., Galeotti, M., & Verdolini, E. (2015). Environmental regulation and competitiveness: Empirical evidence on the Porter hypothesis from European manufacturing sectors. Energy Policy, 83, 288–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.02.014
34. Sun, X., Zhang, R., Yu, Z., Zhu, S., Qie, X., Wu, J., & Li, P. (2024). Revisiting the Porter hypothesis within the economy-environment-health framework: Empirical analysis from a multidimensional perspective. Journal of Environmental Management, 349, 119557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119557
35. Tian, K., Zhang, Y., Li, Y., Ming, Z., Jiang, S., Duan, H., Yang, C., Wang, S., & Moran, D. (2022). Regional trade agreement burdens global carbon emissions mitigation. Nature Communications, 13(1), 408. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-28004-5
36. Tombak, F., & Atik, H. (2024). Çevre kalitesi ve çevresel düzenlemelerin rekabet gücü üzerine etkisi. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 68, 49–56. https://doi.org/10.18070/Erciyesiibd.1386476 UNCTAD. (t.y.). Environmental Policy Stringency Index. Sustainable Freight Transport Framework. https://sft-framework.unctad.org/key-performance-indicator/environment-environmental-policy-stringency-index
37. Van Leeuwen, G., & Mohnen, P. (2016). Revisiting the Porter hypothesis: An empirical analysis of green innovation for the Netherlands. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 26(1–2), 63–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599.2016.1202521
38. Wald, A. (1943). Tests of statistical hypotheses concerning several parameters when the number of observations is large. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 54(3), 426–482. https://doi.org/10.2307/1990256
39. Wang, H., Chen, Z., Wu, X., & Nie, X. (2019). Can a carbon trading system promote the transformation of a low-carbon economy under the framework of the Porter hypothesis?—Empirical analysis based on the PSM-DID method. Energy Policy, 129, 930–938. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.03.007
40. Wang, Y., Sun, X., & Guo, X. (2019). Environmental regulation and green productivity growth: Empirical evidence on the Porter hypothesis from OECD industrial sectors. Energy Policy, 132, 611–619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.06.016
41. Wenjian, H., Tan, L., Liu, Z. J., & Zhang, H. (2020). Property rights protection, environmental regulation and corporate financial performance: Revisiting the Porter hypothesis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 264, 121615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121615
42. Wooldridge, J. M. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. MIT Press..
43. Wu, R., & Lin, B. (2022). Environmental regulation and its influence on energy-environmental performance: Evidence on the Porter hypothesis from China's iron and steel industry. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 176, 105954. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105954
44. Xepapadeas, A., & Zeeuw, A. (1999). Environmental policy and competitiveness: The Porter hypothesis and the composition of capital. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 37(2), 165–182. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1998.1061
45. Zhang, D. (2021). Green credit regulation, induced R&D and green productivity: Revisiting the Porter hypothesis. International Review of Financial Analysis, 75, 101723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2021.101723
46. Zhang, Y., Zeng, S., Wu, Q., Fu, J., & Li, T. (2023). A study on the impact of the carbon emissions trading policy on the mining industry based on Porter hypothesis. Resources Policy, 87, 104349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.104349
47. Zhao, S., Cao, Y., Feng, C., Guo, K., & Zhang, J. (2022). How do heterogeneous R&D investments affect China's green productivity: Revisiting the Porter hypothesis. Science of the Total Environment, 825, 154090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154090
48. Zhong, C., Hamzah, H. Z., Yin, J., Wu, D., Cao, J., Mao, X., & Li, H. (2023). Impact of environmental regulations on the industrial eco-efficiency in China—Based on the strong Porter hypothesis and the weak Porter hypothesis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30, 44490–44504. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11356-023-25410-0