Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

IMPACTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL TAXES ON ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION IN SELECTED OECD COUNTRIES: EVIDENCE FROM CAUSALITY TEST WITH STRUCTURAL BREAKS

Yıl 2020, Sayı: 28, 137 - 154, 21.06.2020
https://doi.org/10.18092/ulikidince.704936

Öz

In this study, the effects of environmental tax revenues on environmental pollution were examined for selected OECD countries in the period of 1995-2016. In the study, the ecological footprint variable, which has been used recently to represent environmental pollution, has been used. In the first part of the empirical analysis, the stationarity of the variables has been examined with two different unit root tests, Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) and Fourier ADF. In the second part, to compare the causality results traditional causality tests namely: Granger, Sims and Geweke tests and new Fourier Granger causality test with smooth breaks has been performed. According to the results obtained from the study, a unidirectional causality was determined from environmental tax revenues to the ecological footprint for the Netherlands and Italy. For Portugal, the direction of causality is from ecological footprint to environmental tax revenues. On the other hand, the bidirectional causality was determined between the variables for England. The results of the study are expected to guide policy makers in determining environmental pollution and environmental tax policies.

Kaynakça

  • Al-Mulali, U., Weng-Wai, C., Sheau-Ting, L. ve Mohammed, A. H. (2015). Investigating the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) Hypothesis by Utilizing The Ecological Footprint As An Indicator Of Environmental Degradation. Ecological Indicators, 48, 315-323.
  • Aydin, M. (2019). Renewable and Non-Renewable Electricity Consumption–Economic Growth Nexus: Evidence from OECD Countries. Renewable energy, 136, 599-606.
  • Becker, R., Enders, W. ve Hurn, S. (2004). A General Test for Time Dependence in Parameters. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 19(7), 899-906.
  • Becker, R., Enders, W. ve Lee, J. (2006). A Stationarity Test in the Presence Of an Unknown Number of Smooth Breaks. Journal of Time Series Analysis, 27(3), 381-409.
  • Charfeddine, L. ve Mrabet, Z. (2017). The Impact of Economic Development and Social-Political Factors on Ecological Footprint: A Panel Data Analysis for 15 MENA Countries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 76, 138-154.
  • Değirmenci, T. ve İnal, V. (2019). Çevre Koruma Harcamalarının Çevre Kirliliği Üzerindeki Etkisi: Seçilmiş OECD Ülkeleri Analizi. Bilgi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 21(2), 232-250.
  • Destek, M. A. ve Sarkodie, S. A. (2019). Investigation of Environmental Kuznets Curve for Ecological Footprint: The Role of Energy and Financial Development. Science of the Total Environment, 650, 2483-2489.
  • Enders, W. ve Jones, P. (2016). Grain Prices, Oil Prices, and Multiple Smooth Breaks in a VAR. Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics & Econometrics, 20(4), 399-419.
  • Enders, W ve Lee, J. (2012). The Flexible Fourier Form and Dickey–Fuller Type Unit Root Tests. Economics Letters, 117(1), 196-199.
  • Geweke, J., R. Meese ve W. Dent. (1982). Comparing Alternative Tests of Causality in Temporal Systems: Analytic Results and Experimental Evidence. Journal of Econometrics, 21, 161–194.
  • Granger, С. (1969). Investigating Causal Relationship by Econometric Models and Cross-Spectral Methods. Econometrica, 37, 424–438.
  • Hotunluoğlu, H. (2007). Karbon Vergisi Teorisi Ve Uygulaması, Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Aydın.
  • İraz, N. (2018). Çevre Kirliliği Ve Motorlu Taşıtlar Vergisi’nin Çevre Kirliliği Üzerindeki Etkisi, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Tekirdağ Namık Kemal Üniversitesi.
  • Lee, J. ve Strazicich, M. (2013). Minimum LM Unit Root Test with One Structural Break. Economics Bulletin, 33(4), 2483-2492.
  • Lee, J. ve Strazicich, M. C. (2003). Minimum Lagrange Multiplier Unit Root Test with Two Structural Breaks. Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(4), 1082-1089.
  • Lumsdaine, R. L. ve Papell, D. H. (1997). Multiple Trend Breaks and the Unit-Root Hypothesis. Review of economics and Statistics, 79(2), 212-218.
  • Miller, S. ve Vela, M. (2013). Are Environmentally Related Taxes Effective?, IDB Workig Paper No. 467. https://www.cbd.int /financial/mainstream/idb-tax.pdf.
  • Morley, B. (2012). Empirical Evidence on the Effectiveness of Environmental Taxes. Applied Economics Letters, 19(18), 1817-1820.
  • Ozturk, I., Al-Mulali, U. ve Saboori, B. (2016). Investigating the Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis: The Role of Tourism and Ecological Footprint. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 23(2), 1916-1928.
  • Perron, P. (1989). The Great Crash, the Oil Price Shock, and the Unit Root Hypothesis, Econometrica, 57(6), 1361-1401.
  • Perron, P. (1994). Trend, Unit Root Hypothesis and Structural Change in Macroeconomic Time Series, Roa, B.Bhasakara (Ed.), Cointegration for Applied Economists, St. Martin’s Press.
  • Rapanos, V. T. ve Polemis, M. L. (2005). Energy Demand and Environmental Taxes: The Case of Greece. Energy Policy, 33(14), 1781-1788.
  • Sasmaz, M. U. (2016). Validity of Double Dividend Hypothesis in Eu-15 Countries. New Trends and Issues Proceedings on Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(2), 30-36.
  • Schöb, R. (2005). The Double-Dividend Hypothesis of Environmental Taxes: A Survey. The international yearbook of environmental and resource economics, 223-279.
  • Sims, C. (1972). Money, Income and Causality, American Economic Review, 62, 540–552.
  • Tekin, A. ve Şaşmaz, M. Ü. (2016). Küreselleşme Sürecinde Ekolojik Riskleri Azaltmada Çevresel Vergilerin Etkisi: Avrupa Birliği Örneği. Yönetim ve Ekonomi: Celal Bayar Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 23(1), 1-17.
  • Topal, M. H. (2017). Çifte Kazanç Hipotezinin OECD Ekonomileri İçin Testi: Panel Eş Bütünleşme ve Nedensellik Analizi. The Journal of International Scientific Researches, 2(4), 1-20.
  • Topal, M. H. ve Günay, H. F. (2017). Çevre Vergilerinin Çevre Kalitesi Üzerindeki Etkisi: Gelişmekte Olan ve Gelişmiş Ekonomilerden Ampirik Bir Kanıt. Maliye Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(1).
  • Ulucak, R. ve Bilgili, F. (2018). A Reinvestigation of EKC Model by Ecological Footprint Measurement for High, Middle and Low Income Countries. Journal of cleaner production, 188, 144-157.
  • Zivot, E. ve Andrews, D. (1992). Further Evidence on the Great Crash, the Oil Price Shock, and the Unit Root Hypothesis, Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 10(3), 251-270.

SEÇİLMİŞ OECD ÜLKELERİNDE ÇEVRE VERGİLERİNİN ÇEVRE KİRLİLİĞİ ÜZERİNDEKİ ETKİLERİ: YAPISAL KIRILMALI NEDENSELLİK TESTİNDEN KANITLAR

Yıl 2020, Sayı: 28, 137 - 154, 21.06.2020
https://doi.org/10.18092/ulikidince.704936

Öz

Bu çalışmada seçilmiş OECD ülkeleri için 1995-2016 döneminde çevre vergisi gelirlerinin çevre kirliliği üzerindeki etkileri incelenmiştir. Çalışmada çevre kirliliğini temsilen son zamanlarda kullanılmaya başlanan ekolojik ayak izi değişkeni kullanılmıştır. Ampirik analizin ilk bölümünde değişkenlerin durağanlık dereceleri Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) ve Fourier ADF olmak üzere iki farklı birim kök testi ile incelenmiştir. İkinci bölümde, nedensellik sonuçlarını karşılaştırmak için geleneksel nedensellik testlerinden Granger, Sims ve Geweke nedensellik testleri ve yumuşak yapısal kırılmalı yeni Fourier Granger nedensellik testi uygulanmıştır. Çalışmadan elde edilen sonuçlara göre Hollanda ve İtalya için çevre vergisi gelirlerinden ekolojik ayak izine doğru tek yönlü bir nedensellik tespit edilmiştir. Portekiz için ise nedenselliğin yönü ekolojik ayak izinden çevre vergisi gelirlerine doğrudur. Diğer taraftan, İngiltere için değişkenler arasında çift yönlü nedensellik tespit edilmiştir. Çalışmanın sonuçlarının çevre kirliliği ve çevre vergisi politikalarının belirlenmesinde politika yapıcılara yol gösterici olması beklenmektedir.

Kaynakça

  • Al-Mulali, U., Weng-Wai, C., Sheau-Ting, L. ve Mohammed, A. H. (2015). Investigating the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) Hypothesis by Utilizing The Ecological Footprint As An Indicator Of Environmental Degradation. Ecological Indicators, 48, 315-323.
  • Aydin, M. (2019). Renewable and Non-Renewable Electricity Consumption–Economic Growth Nexus: Evidence from OECD Countries. Renewable energy, 136, 599-606.
  • Becker, R., Enders, W. ve Hurn, S. (2004). A General Test for Time Dependence in Parameters. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 19(7), 899-906.
  • Becker, R., Enders, W. ve Lee, J. (2006). A Stationarity Test in the Presence Of an Unknown Number of Smooth Breaks. Journal of Time Series Analysis, 27(3), 381-409.
  • Charfeddine, L. ve Mrabet, Z. (2017). The Impact of Economic Development and Social-Political Factors on Ecological Footprint: A Panel Data Analysis for 15 MENA Countries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 76, 138-154.
  • Değirmenci, T. ve İnal, V. (2019). Çevre Koruma Harcamalarının Çevre Kirliliği Üzerindeki Etkisi: Seçilmiş OECD Ülkeleri Analizi. Bilgi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 21(2), 232-250.
  • Destek, M. A. ve Sarkodie, S. A. (2019). Investigation of Environmental Kuznets Curve for Ecological Footprint: The Role of Energy and Financial Development. Science of the Total Environment, 650, 2483-2489.
  • Enders, W. ve Jones, P. (2016). Grain Prices, Oil Prices, and Multiple Smooth Breaks in a VAR. Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics & Econometrics, 20(4), 399-419.
  • Enders, W ve Lee, J. (2012). The Flexible Fourier Form and Dickey–Fuller Type Unit Root Tests. Economics Letters, 117(1), 196-199.
  • Geweke, J., R. Meese ve W. Dent. (1982). Comparing Alternative Tests of Causality in Temporal Systems: Analytic Results and Experimental Evidence. Journal of Econometrics, 21, 161–194.
  • Granger, С. (1969). Investigating Causal Relationship by Econometric Models and Cross-Spectral Methods. Econometrica, 37, 424–438.
  • Hotunluoğlu, H. (2007). Karbon Vergisi Teorisi Ve Uygulaması, Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Aydın.
  • İraz, N. (2018). Çevre Kirliliği Ve Motorlu Taşıtlar Vergisi’nin Çevre Kirliliği Üzerindeki Etkisi, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Tekirdağ Namık Kemal Üniversitesi.
  • Lee, J. ve Strazicich, M. (2013). Minimum LM Unit Root Test with One Structural Break. Economics Bulletin, 33(4), 2483-2492.
  • Lee, J. ve Strazicich, M. C. (2003). Minimum Lagrange Multiplier Unit Root Test with Two Structural Breaks. Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(4), 1082-1089.
  • Lumsdaine, R. L. ve Papell, D. H. (1997). Multiple Trend Breaks and the Unit-Root Hypothesis. Review of economics and Statistics, 79(2), 212-218.
  • Miller, S. ve Vela, M. (2013). Are Environmentally Related Taxes Effective?, IDB Workig Paper No. 467. https://www.cbd.int /financial/mainstream/idb-tax.pdf.
  • Morley, B. (2012). Empirical Evidence on the Effectiveness of Environmental Taxes. Applied Economics Letters, 19(18), 1817-1820.
  • Ozturk, I., Al-Mulali, U. ve Saboori, B. (2016). Investigating the Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis: The Role of Tourism and Ecological Footprint. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 23(2), 1916-1928.
  • Perron, P. (1989). The Great Crash, the Oil Price Shock, and the Unit Root Hypothesis, Econometrica, 57(6), 1361-1401.
  • Perron, P. (1994). Trend, Unit Root Hypothesis and Structural Change in Macroeconomic Time Series, Roa, B.Bhasakara (Ed.), Cointegration for Applied Economists, St. Martin’s Press.
  • Rapanos, V. T. ve Polemis, M. L. (2005). Energy Demand and Environmental Taxes: The Case of Greece. Energy Policy, 33(14), 1781-1788.
  • Sasmaz, M. U. (2016). Validity of Double Dividend Hypothesis in Eu-15 Countries. New Trends and Issues Proceedings on Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(2), 30-36.
  • Schöb, R. (2005). The Double-Dividend Hypothesis of Environmental Taxes: A Survey. The international yearbook of environmental and resource economics, 223-279.
  • Sims, C. (1972). Money, Income and Causality, American Economic Review, 62, 540–552.
  • Tekin, A. ve Şaşmaz, M. Ü. (2016). Küreselleşme Sürecinde Ekolojik Riskleri Azaltmada Çevresel Vergilerin Etkisi: Avrupa Birliği Örneği. Yönetim ve Ekonomi: Celal Bayar Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 23(1), 1-17.
  • Topal, M. H. (2017). Çifte Kazanç Hipotezinin OECD Ekonomileri İçin Testi: Panel Eş Bütünleşme ve Nedensellik Analizi. The Journal of International Scientific Researches, 2(4), 1-20.
  • Topal, M. H. ve Günay, H. F. (2017). Çevre Vergilerinin Çevre Kalitesi Üzerindeki Etkisi: Gelişmekte Olan ve Gelişmiş Ekonomilerden Ampirik Bir Kanıt. Maliye Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(1).
  • Ulucak, R. ve Bilgili, F. (2018). A Reinvestigation of EKC Model by Ecological Footprint Measurement for High, Middle and Low Income Countries. Journal of cleaner production, 188, 144-157.
  • Zivot, E. ve Andrews, D. (1992). Further Evidence on the Great Crash, the Oil Price Shock, and the Unit Root Hypothesis, Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 10(3), 251-270.
Toplam 30 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Bölüm MAKALELER
Yazarlar

Mücahit Aydın 0000-0002-4934-0191

Yayımlanma Tarihi 21 Haziran 2020
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2020 Sayı: 28

Kaynak Göster

APA Aydın, M. (2020). SEÇİLMİŞ OECD ÜLKELERİNDE ÇEVRE VERGİLERİNİN ÇEVRE KİRLİLİĞİ ÜZERİNDEKİ ETKİLERİ: YAPISAL KIRILMALI NEDENSELLİK TESTİNDEN KANITLAR. Uluslararası İktisadi Ve İdari İncelemeler Dergisi(28), 137-154. https://doi.org/10.18092/ulikidince.704936


______________________________________________________

Adres: KTÜ-İİBF. Oda No:213    61080 TRABZON
e-mailuiiidergisi@gmail.com