Çevre Koruma Harcamaları ile Gelir Dağılımı ve Ekonomik Büyüme Arasındaki Dinamik İlişkiler: Seçili OECD Ülkeleri için Panel Nedensellik Yaklaşımı

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 28 Sayı: 46, 391 - 406, 31.10.2020

Tunahan Değirmenci , Mehmet Aydın

https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.2020.04.18

Cited By: 5

Öz

Bu çalışmada, 1995-2017 döneminde seçilmiş OECD ülkeleri için çevre koruma harcamaları ile ekonomik büyüme ve gelir eşitsizliği arasındaki ilişkiler Emirmahmutoğlu ve Köse (2011) ve Kónya (2006) panel nedensellik testleri ile incelenmiştir. Çalışmadan elde edilen sonuçlar genel olarak değerlendirildiğinde, çevre koruma harcamaları ile ekonomik büyüme arasında çevre koruma harcamalarından ekonomik büyümeye doğru bir nedensellik ilişkisi olduğu ve çevre koruma harcamaları ve gelir eşitsizliği arasında çift yönlü bir nedensellik ilişkisi olduğu bulguları elde edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Çevre Koruma Harcamaları, Gelir Eşitsizliği, Ekonomik Büyüme, Panel Nedensellik

The Dynamic Relationships between Environmental Protection Expenditures, Income Inequality and Economic Growth: Panel Causality Approach for Selected OECD Countries

Öz

In this study, relationships between environmental protection expenditures, income inequality, and economic growth were examined for selected OECD countries for the period 1995–2017 using Emirmahmutoğlu and Kose (2011), and Kónya (2006) panel causality tests. When the results obtained from the study are evaluated in general, it has been found that there is a causality relationship between environmental protection expenditures and economic growth from environmental protection expenditures to economic growth and there is a bidirectional causality relationship between environmental protection expenditures and income inequality.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Environmental Protection Expenditures, Income Inequality, Economic Growth, Panel Causality

Kaynakça

• Altun-Ada, A. (2014), “Environmental protection Expenditure and Economic growth: A panel Data Analysis for the EU and Turkey”, British Journal of Economics, 9, 2.
• Antoci, A. & S. Borghesi & P. Russu (2005), “Environmental defensive expenditures, expectations and growth”, Population and Environment, 27(2), 227-244.
• Badulescu, D. & A. Badulescu & A. Rangone & S. Sipos-Gug (2016), “Different or alike? Investigating the impact of GDP on environmental protection expenditure in selected European States”, Global & Local Economic Review, 20(1), 55-75.
• Bimonte, S. (2002), “Information access, income distribution, and the Environmental Kuznets Curve”, Ecological economics, 41(1), 145-156.
• Blake, D.E. & N. Guppy & P. Urmetzer (1997), “Canadian public opinion and environmental action: Evidence from British Columbia”, Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique, 30(3), 451-472.
• Breusch, T.S. & A.R. Pagan (1980), “The Lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics”, The review of economic studies, 47(1), 239-253.
• Broniewicz, E. (2011), “Environmental protection expenditure in European Union”, Environmental Management in Practice, 21-36. Carraro, C. & M. Galeotti (1997), “Economic growth, international competitiveness and environmental protection: R & D and innovation strategies with the WARM model”, Energy Economics, 19(1), 2-28.
• Dağdemir, Ö. (2015), Çevre Sorunlarına Ekonomik Yaklaşımlar ve Optimal Politika Arayışları (3. Baskı), Ankara: Gazi Kitabevi.
• Elliott, E. & B.J. Seldon & J.L. Regens (1997), “Political and economic determinants of individuals support for environmental spending”, Journal of Environmental Management, 51(1), 15-27.
• Emirmahmutoglu, F. & N. Kose (2011), “Testing for Granger causality in heterogeneous mixed panels”, Economic Modelling, 28(3), 870-876.
• Ertürk, H. (1998), Çevre Bilimlerine Giriş (3. Baskı), Bursa: Ceylan Matbaacılık.
• Feiock, R.C. & C. Stream (2001), “Environmental Protection Versus Economic Development: A False Trade‐Off?”, Public administration review, 61(3), 313-321.
• Jorgenson, D.W. & P.J. Wilcoxen (1990), “Environmental regulation and US economic growth”, The Rand Journal of Economics, 314-340.
• Kahn, M.E. & J.G. Matsusaka (1997), “Demand for environmental goods: Evidence from voting patterns on California initiatives”, The Journal of Law and Economics, 40(1), 137-174.
• Komen, M.H. & S. Gerking & H. Folmer (1997), “Income and environmental R&D: empirical evidence from OECD countries”, Environment and Development Economics, 2(4), 505-515.
• Kónya, L. (2006), “Exports and growth: Granger causality analysis on OECD countries with a panel data approach”, Economic Modelling, 23(6), 978-992.
• Krajewski, P. (2016), “The impact of public environmental protection expenditure on economic growth”, Problemy Ekorozwoju–Problems of Sustainable Development, 11(2), 99-104.
• Ladaru, G.R. & R. Dracea (2017), “Influence of the Environmental Protection Expenditure Dynamics on the Economic Growth in Romania During 2008-2015”, Rev. Chim. (Bucharest), 67, 2166.
• List, J.A. & M. Kunce (2000), “Environmental protection and economic growth: what do the residuals tell us?”, Land Economics, 267-282.
• Magnani, E. (2000), “The Environmental Kuznets Curve, environmental protection policy and income distribution”, Ecological economics, 32(3), 431-443.
• Marsiliani, L. & T.I. Renstrom (2000), “Inequality, Environmental Protection and Growth”, FEEM Working Paper No. 36.00.
• Meyer, S.M. (1995), “The economic impact of environmental regulation”, Journal of Environmental Law & Practice, 3(2), 4-15.
• Morgenstern, R.D. & W.A. Pizer & J.S. Shih (2001), “The cost of environmental protection”, Review of Economics and Statistics, 83(4), 732-738.
• Musgrave, R.A. & J.M. Culbertson (1953), “The growth of public expenditures in the United States, 1890-1948”, National Tax Journal, 6(2), 97-115.
• Nadaroğlu, H. (1996), Kamu maliyesi teorisi, Beta Basım Yayım Dağıtım AŞ.
• Newell, S.J. & C.L. Green (1997), “Racial differences in consumer environmental concern”, Journal of Consumer Affairs, 31(1), 53-69.
• Nuţa, F.M. (2011), “Public environmental spending and the economic growth in Romania”, Euro Economica, 29(3), 109-113.
• OECD (1985), The Macro‐Economic Impact of Environmental Expenditures, Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
• Panayotou, T. (2016), “Economic growth and the environment”, The environment in anthropology, 140-148.
• Peacock, A. & J. Wiseman (1967), The Growth of Public Expenditure in the United Kingdom, London, 2.
• Pesaran, M.H. (2004), General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels.
• 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.
• Ridzuan, S. (2019), “Inequality and the environmental Kuznets curve”, Journal of cleaner production, 228, 1472-1481.
• Sencar, P. (2007), “Türkiye’de Çevre Koruma ve Ekonomik Büyüme İlişkisi”, Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Edirne: Trakya Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
• Türk, İ. (1996), Kamu Maliyesi (2. Baskı), Ankara: Turhan Kitabevi Yayınları.
• Wagner, A. (1883), Finanzwissenschaft (Vol. 4, No. 1), CF Winter.