SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi / 2026 / Sayı: 75

ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ENVIRONMENTAL TAXES AND EMPLOYMENT IN TURKIYE USING FOURIER-BASED TIME SERIES TECHNIQUES

TÜRKİYE’DE ÇEVRESEL VERGİLER-İSTİHDAM İLİŞKİSİNİN FOURIER TEMELLİ ZAMAN SERİSİ TEKNİKLERİ İLE İNCELENMESİ

Umut Akduğan(TRAKYA ÜNİVERSİTESİ İKTİSADİ VE İDARİ BİLİMLER FAKÜLTESİ MALİYE BÖLÜMÜ MALİ İKTİSAT ANABİLİM DALI)0000-0001-8659-541X
Mikail Pehlivan(TRAKYA ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-7273-333X
Pages
338–353
Publication Date
2026-07-14
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The empirical findings reveal a significant long-run relationship between the variables, indicating that increases in environmental taxes reduce employment over time.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study investigates the long-run and short-run dynamics between environmental taxes and employment in Turkiye within the framework of Environmental Fiscal Reforms and sustainable taxation.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Using monthly data for the period 2005-2023, the analysis employs the Flexible Fourier unit root test and the Fourier-ADL cointegration approach, which allow for smooth and gradual structural changes commonly observed in macroeconomic time series.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The empirical findings reveal a significant long-run relationship between the variables, indicating that increases in environmental taxes reduce employment over time.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2005-2023 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Çevresel Vergiler · İstihdam · Esnek Fourier Birim Kök

Abstract

This study investigates the long-run and short-run dynamics between environmental taxes and employment in Turkiye within the framework of Environmental Fiscal Reforms and sustainable taxation. Using monthly data for the period 2005-2023, the analysis employs the Flexible Fourier unit root test and the Fourier-ADL cointegration approach, which allow for smooth and gradual structural changes commonly observed in macroeconomic time series. The empirical findings reveal a significant long-run relationship between the variables, indicating that increases in environmental taxes reduce employment over time. The long-run elasticity of environmental taxes with respect to employment is estimated at -0.03, suggesting that a 1% rise in environmental taxes leads to a 0.03% decline in employment. Short-run causality tests, however, show no evidence of a causal effect from environmental taxes to employment, confirming the absence of short-term adjustments. These results demonstrate that the employment double dividend hypothesis does not hold for Turkiye, as environmental taxes exert a mild but persistent downward pressure on employment. The findings are evaluated within the context of Turkiye’s labor market structure and tax system, highlighting the importance of revenue-recycling mechanisms and well-designed sectoral transition policies for minimizing potential negative labor-market impacts while pursuing environmental objectives.

Özet

Bu çalışma, çevresel mali reformlar ve sürdürülebilir vergilendirme çerçevesinde Türkiye’de çevresel vergiler ile istihdam arasındaki uzun ve kısa dönemli ilişkileri incelemektedir. 2005-2023 dönemine ait aylık veriler kullanılarak esnek Fourier birim kök testi ve Fourier-ADL eşbütünleşme yaklaşımı uygulanmış; böylece makroekonomik zaman serilerinde sıkça gözlenen kademeli ve yumuşak yapısal değişimlerin analize dâhil edilmesi sağlanmıştır. Elde edilen bulgular, değişkenler arasında uzun dönemli bir ilişki bulunduğunu göstermektedir. Uzun dönem tahmin sonuçlarına göre çevresel vergilerdeki artışlar istihdamı olumsuz etkilemekte; istihdamın çevresel vergilere göre esnekliği -0,03 olarak hesaplanmaktadır. Bu sonuç, çevresel vergilerdeki %1’lik bir artışın istihdamı yaklaşık %0,03 azalttığını ortaya koymaktadır. Kısa dönemde ise çevresel vergilerden istihdama doğru anlamlı bir nedensellik ilişkisi tespit edilmemiştir. Dolayısıyla, Türkiye açısından istihdam çifte yarar hipotezinin geçerli olmadığı sonucuna ulaşılmaktadır. Bulgular, Türkiye’nin işgücü piyasası yapısı ve vergi sisteminin özellikleriyle birlikte değerlendirildiğinde, çevresel vergilerin istihdam üzerindeki olumsuz etkilerinin azaltılabilmesi için gelir geri dönüşüm mekanizmalarının ve sektörel geçiş politikalarının dikkatle tasarlanması gerektiğini göstermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Akduğan, U., Pehlivan, M. (2026). ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ENVIRONMENTAL TAXES AND EMPLOYMENT IN TURKIYE USING FOURIER-BASED TIME SERIES TECHNIQUES. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Sayı: 75, 338–353. https://doi.org/10.30794/pausbed.1731968

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (62)

  1. Bach, S., Kohlhaas, M., Meyer, B., Praetorius, B., & Welsch, H. (2002). The effects of environmental fiscal reform in Germany: A simulation study. Energy Policy, 30(9), 803–811. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(02)00005-8
  2. Banerjee, P., Arčabić, V., & Lee, H. (2017). Fourier ADL cointegration test to approximate smooth breaks with new evidence from crude oil market. Economic Modelling, 67, 114–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2016.11.004
  3. Bartley, W. A., Lee, J., & Strazicich, M. C. (2001). Testing the null of cointegration in the presence of a structural break. Economics Letters, 73(3), 315–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-1765(01)00499-2
  4. Becker, R., Enders, W., & Hurn, S. (2004). A general test for time dependence in parameters. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 19(7), 899–906. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.751
  5. Becker, R., Enders, W., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9892.2006.00478.x
  6. Bovenberg, A. L. (1999). Green tax reforms and the double dividend: An updated reader’s guide. International Tax and Public Finance, 6(3), 421- 443. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781035304639.00010
  7. Bovenberg, A. L., & de Mooij, R. A. (1997). Environmental tax reform and endogenous growth. Journal of Public Economics, 63, 207–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2727(96)01596-4
  8. Bovenberg, A. L., & De Mooij, R. A. (1994). Environmental taxes and labor-market distortions. European Journal of Political Economy, 10(4), 655-683. https://doi.org/10.1016/0176-2680(94)90032-9
  9. Bovenberg, A. L., & van der Ploeg, F. (1994). Environmental policy, public finance and the labor market in a second-best world. Journal of Public Economics, 55, 349–390. https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-2727(93)01398-T Bulutoğlu, K. (1962). Vergi politikası. Sermet Matbaası.
  10. Carraro, C., Galeotti, M., & Gallo, M. (1996). Environmental taxes and unemployment: Some evidence on the double-dividend hypothesis. Journal of Public Economics, 62, 141–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-2727(96)01577-0
  11. Cernea, M. (1994). The sociologist's approach to sustainable development. In (Eds: I. Serageldin, & A. Steer), Making Development Sustainable: From Concepts to Action. Washington: World Bank, 7–10.
  12. Cheung, Y.-W., & Chinn, M. (1997). Further Investigation of the Uncertain Unit Root in GNP. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 15(1), 68-73. https://doi.org/10.1080/07350015.1997.10524688
  13. Cil, N. (2023). Re-examination of pollution haven hypothesis for Turkey with Fourier approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(4), 10024- 10036. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-22800-8
  14. Conefrey, T., Fitz Gerald, J. D., Valeri, L. M., & Tol, R. S. J. (2013). The impact of a carbon tax on economic growth and carbon dioxide emissions in Ireland, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 56(7), 934-952. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2012.709467
  15. Çiçek, H. G., & Öz, S. D. (2024). Avrupa Birliği ülkelerinde çevre vergilerinin çevre, ekonomik büyüme ve işsizlik üzerindeki etkisinin ampirik analizi. Sosyoekonomi, 32(59), 269–295. https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.2024.01.12
  16. De Oliveira, M. O. B. (2000). Sustainable tax systems, economic and social development. In Book of Proceedings, 52nd International Scientific Conference on Economic and Social Development (pp. 223–229).
  17. Degirmenci, T., & Aydin, M. (2023). The effects of environmental taxes on environmental pollution and unemployment: A panel co‐integration analysis on the validity of double dividend hypothesis for selected African countries. International Journal of Finance & Economics, 28(3), 2231–2238. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijfe.2505
  18. Değirmendereli, A. (2004). Çevrenin korunmasında özel ve kamu girisimi ya da çevre koruma araçları. İçinde (Ed: M. Marin, & U. Yıldırım), Çağdaş Yaklaşımlar: Ekolojik, Ekonomik, Politik ve Yönetsel Perspektifler, İstanbul: Beta Basım, 490–514.
  19. Enders, W., & Lee, J. (2012). The flexible Fourier form and Dickey–Fuller type unit root tests. Economics Letters, 117(1), 196–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2012.04.081
  20. Enders, W., & Lee, J. (2012a). A unit root test using a Fourier series to approximate smooth breaks. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 74(4), 574–599. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2011.00662.x European Commission. (2021). Taxation trends in the European Union. Publications Office of the European Union. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/d5b94e4e-d4f1-11eb-895a-01aa75ed71a1/language-en
  21. Faure, M. G. (2012). Environmental regulation. In (Eds: R. J. van den Bergh, & A. M. Pacces), Encyclopedia of Law and Economics: Regulation and Economics, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 443–519.
  22. Florczak, W. (2006). Macroeconomic consequences of introducing taxes on carbon dioxide emissions in Poland (TranSust.Scan Project Report).
  23. Goulder, L. H. (1995). Environmental taxation and the double dividend: A reader’s guide. International Tax and Public Finance, 2, 157–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00877495
  24. Harvey, D., & Mills, T. (2002). Unit roots and double smooth transitions. Journal of Applied Statistics, 29(5), 675-683. https://doi.org/10.1080/02664760120098739
  25. Heine, D., Norregaard, J., & Parry, I. (2012). Environmental tax reform: Principles from theory and practice to date (IMF Working Paper No. WP/12/180).
  26. Kapetanios, G., Shin, Y., & Snell, A. (2006). Testing for cointegration in nonlinear smooth transition error correction models. Econometric Theory, 22(2), 279- 303. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266466606060129
  27. Kurt, M. (2024). Avrupa Birliği Ülkelerinde Yenilenebilir Enerji Ekonomik Büyüme İlişkisinde Çevre Vergilerinin Rolü: Panel Veri Analizi. Maliye Dergisi, 187, 121-143.
  28. Lee, D. R., & Misiolek, W. S. (1986). Substituting pollution taxation for general taxation: Some implications for efficiency in pollution taxation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 13, 338–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/0095-0696(86)90004-5
  29. Lee, J., & Strazicich, M. C. (2003). Minimum Lagrange multiplier unit root test with two structural breaks. Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(4), 1082- 1089. https://doi.org/10.1162/003465303772815961
  30. Lee, J., & Strazicich, M. C. (2004). Minimum LM unit root test with one structural break. Appalachian State University Working Papers, 04-17:1-15.
  31. Leybourne, S., Newbold, P., & Vougas, D. (1998). Unit roots and smooth transitions. Journal of Time Series Analysis, 19(1), 83-97. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9892.00078
  32. Ligthart, J. E., & van der Ploeg, F. (1996). Optimal government policy, the environment, employment and tax shifting. In C. Carraro & D. Siniscalco (Eds.), Environmental Fiscal Reform and Unemployment (pp. 93–122). Kluwer Academic Press.
  33. Miceikiene, A., Čiulevičienė, V., Rauluskeviciene, J., & Štreimikienė, D. (2018). Assessment of the effect of environmental taxes on environmental protection. Ekonomický Časopis, 66(3), 286–308. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324258924
  34. Murray, K., Oliver, R. & Wyatt, S. (2014). Evaluation of taxation reform in the pacific, Report of Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Wellington.
  35. Munasinghe, M. (1994). The economist's approach to sustainable development. In (Eds: I. Serageldin, & A. Steer), Making Development Sustainable: From Concepts to Action, Washington: World Bank.
  36. Munier, N. (2005). Introduction to sustainability: Road to a better future. Dordrecht: Springer. Nerudová, D., Hampel, D., Janová, J., Dobranschi, M. & Rozmahel, P. (2019). Tax system sustainability evaluation: A model for EU countries, Intereconomics, 54(3), 138 141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10272-019-0811-6
  37. Nikolova, B. S. (2021). Personal income taxation and its effects on economic development and growth. In P. Kostis (Ed.), Bridging microeconomics and macroeconomics and the effects on economic development and growth (pp. 148–172). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-4933-9.ch008
  38. Nikolova, B. S. (2023). Tax audit and taxation in the paradigm of sustainable development: The impact on economic, social and environmental development. Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32126-9
  39. Oates, W. E. (1995). Green taxes: Can we protect the environment and improve the tax system at the same time? Southern Economic Journal, 61, 915–922. https://doi.org/10.2307/1060731
  40. Oates, W. E., & Baumol, W. J. (1975). The instruments for environmental policy. In Economic analysis of environmental problems (pp. 95–132). NBER.
  41. Ostry, J. D., Berg, A., & Tsangarides, C. G. (2014). Redistribution, inequality, and growth (IMF Staff Discussion Note No. 14/02).
  42. Öncel, T. (1993). Çevre koruma önlemlerine genel bir bakış. İ. Ü. İktisat Fakültesi Maliye Araştırma Merkezi Konferansları, Yayın No: 76, Otuzdördüncü Seri, 1990/1991, 170–177. https://izlik.org/JA83HW69BL
  43. Quintos, C. E. (1995). Sustainability of the deficit process with structural shifts. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 13(4), 409-417. https://doi.org/10.1080/07350015.1995.10524615
  44. Parry, I. W. H. (1995). Pollution taxes and revenue recycling. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 29, S64–S77. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1995.1061
  45. Pearce, D. W. (1991). The role of carbon taxes in adjusting to global warming. Economic Journal, 101, 938–948. https://doi.org/10.2307/2233865
  46. Radulescu, M., Sinisi, C. I., Popecu, I., & Iacob, S. E. (2017). Environmental tax policy in Romania in the context of the EU: Double dividend theory. Sustainability, 9(11), 1986. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9111986
  47. Rees, C. (1994). The ecologist's approach to sustainable development. In (Eds: I. Serageldin, & A. Steer), Making Development Sustainable: From Concepts to Action, Washington: World Bank. Rosen, S. H. & Gayer, T. (2008). Public finance. 8th Edition, New York: McGraw-Hill International Edition.
  48. Schratzenstaller, M., Krenek, A., Nerudová, D., & Dobranschi, M. (2016). EU taxes as genuine own resource to finance the EU budget: Pros, cons and sustainability-oriented criteria to evaluate potential tax candidates (FairTax Working Paper No. 3).
  49. Schöb, R. (2005). The double-dividend hypothesis of environmental taxes: a survey. The international yearbook of environmental and resource economics, 2006, 223-279.
  50. Silvapulle, P. (1996). Testing for a unit root in a time series with mean shifts. Applied Economics Letters, 3(10), 629-635. https://doi.org/10.1080/135048596355826
  51. Slunge, D., & Sterner, T. (2012). Environmental fiscal reform in East and Southern Africa and its effects on income distribution. In L. Castellucci & A. Markandya (Eds.), Environmental taxes and fiscal reform (pp. 93–122). Palgrave Macmillan.
  52. Smith, s. (2011). Environmental economics: A very short introduction. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  53. Stancil, J. A. (2013). Model for sustainability taxation, Mustang Journal of Accounting & Finance, V. 3, 97-106.
  54. Stiglitz, J. E. (2012). The price of inequality: How today’s divided society endangers our future. W. W. Norton.
  55. Şaşmaz, M. Ü. (2016). Validity of double dividend hypothesis in EU-15 countries. New Trends and Issues Proceedings on Humanities and Social Sciences, 2, 30- 36. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299998351
  56. Tekin, A., & Şaşmaz, M. Ü. (2016). Çevre vergilerinin makroekonomik etkilerinin değerlendirilmesi. Vergi Raporu, 197, 16–29. https://doi.org/10.58830/ozgur.pub584.c2408
  57. Terkla, D. (1984). The efficiency value of effluent tax revenues. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 11, 107–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/0095-0696(84)90010-X
  58. Topal, M. H. (2017). Çifte kazanç hipotezinin OECD ekonomileri için testi: Panel eşbütünleşme ve nedensellik analizi. Uluslararası Bilimsel Araştırmalar Dergisi, 2(4), 1–20.
  59. Ulph, D. (1992). A note on the “double benefit” of pollution taxes (Discussion Paper No. 92-317). University of Bristol.
  60. WCED, W. (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
  61. Yamazaki, A. (2017). Jobs and climate policy: Evidence from British Columbia’s revenue-neutral carbon tax. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 83, 197- 216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2017.03.003
  62. Yang, X., Jiang, P., & Pan, Y. (2020). Does China's carbon emission trading policy have an employment double dividend and a Porter effect? Energy Policy, 142, 111492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111492