SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 35

THE CYCLICAL DYNAMICS OF CARBON EMISSIONS: A MARKOV-SWITCHING APPROACH FOR TURKIYE

KARBON EMİSYONLARININ DÖNGÜSEL DİNAMİĞİ: TÜRKİYE İÇİN MARKOV-GEÇİŞ YAKLAŞIMI

Volkan Kaymaz(İSTANBUL YENİ YÜZYIL ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-7556-9507
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-03-09
🏛️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)

In particular, stricter regulations should be introduced during periods of economic growth and spesific reduction target should be maintained even during periods of economic recession.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aims to reveal the responses of carbon emissions to economic business cycles in the Turkish economy by using the Markov-Switching Autoregressive (MSAR) model..
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this context, the study analyzes the cyclical components of annual total and per capita carbon emissions and gross domestic product (GDP) for the period 1970-2023.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In particular, stricter regulations should be introduced during periods of economic growth and spesific reduction target should be maintained even during periods of economic recession.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2023 Verileri
⚙️Variables:İş döngüsü · Sera gazı emisyonları · Markov-switching otoregresif

Abstract

This study aims to reveal the responses of carbon emissions to economic business cycles in the Turkish economy by using the Markov-Switching Autoregressive (MSAR) model.. It is frequently emphasized in the literature that carbon emissions exhibit a nonlinear relationship with economic growth and respond asymmetrically to periods of expansion and contraction. In this context, the study analyzes the cyclical components of annual total and per capita carbon emissions and gross domestic product (GDP) for the period 1970-2023. The findings show that carbon emissions increase during periods of economic expansion but do not decrease at the same rate during recessions. The results reveal that the response of emissions to business cycles is asymmetric and that emission growth is positive but less than one during expansion periods. On the other hand, the sensitivity of emissions is negative during economic recession periods and emissions show a more limited decrease compared to the contraction in GDP. These results have important policy implications for Turkiye’s transition to a low-carbon growth strategy. In particular, stricter regulations should be introduced during periods of economic growth and spesific reduction target should be maintained even during periods of economic recession.

Özet

Bu çalışma, karbon emisyonlarının ekonomik iş döngülerine verdiği tepkileri incelemek amacıyla Türkiye ekonomisi için Markov-Switching Otoregresif (MSAR) modelini kullanmaktadır. Karbon emisyonlarının ekonomik büyüme ile doğrusal olmayan bir ilişki sergilediği ve genişleme ile daralma dönemlerine asimetrik tepkiler verdiği literatürde sıkça vurgulanmaktadır. Bu bağlamda, çalışmada 1970-2023 dönemi yıllık toplam ve kişi başına düşen karbon emisyonları ile gayri safi yurtiçi hasılanın (GSYİH) döngüsel bileşenleri analiz edilmiştir. Elde edilen bulgular, karbon emisyonlarının ekonomik genişleme dönemlerinde arttığını ancak durgunluk dönemlerinde aynı hızda azalmadığını göstermektedir. Sonuçlar, emisyonların iş döngülerine yönelik tepkisinin asimetrik olduğunu ve genişleme dönemlerinde emisyon büyümesinin pozitif ancak 1’den küçük olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Buna karşılık, ekonomik durgunluk dönemlerinde emisyonların duyarlılığı negatif olup, emisyonlar GSYİH’deki daralmaya kıyasla daha sınırlı bir azalış göstermektedir. Bu sonuçlar, Türkiye’nin düşük karbonlu büyüme stratejisine geçişi açısından önemli politika çıkarımları taşımaktadır. Özellikle, ekonomik büyüme dönemlerinde daha sıkı düzenlemeler getirilmesi ve ekonomik durgunluk dönemlerinde de belirli bir azaltım hedefinin korunması gerekmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kaymaz, V. (2026). THE CYCLICAL DYNAMICS OF CARBON EMISSIONS: A MARKOV-SWITCHING APPROACH FOR TURKIYE. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Cilt: 35. https://doi.org/10.35379/cusosbil.1639189

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (19)

  1. Annicchiarico, B., & Di Dio, F. (2015). Environmental policy and macroeconomic dynamics in a new Keynesian model. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 69, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2014.10.002
  2. Aşıcı, M. A. (2021). Avrupa Birliği'nin Sınırda Karbon Uyarlaması Mekanizması ve Türkiye Ekonomisi. İstanbul: IPM-Mercator.
  3. Azami, S., & Angazbani, F. (2020). CO2 response to business cycles: new evidence of the largest CO2-Emitting countries in Asia and the Middle East. Journal of cleaner production, 252, 119743. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119743
  4. Burke, P. J., Shahiduzzaman, M., & Stern, D. I. (2015). Carbon dioxide emissions in the short run: The rate and sources of economic growth matter. Global Environmental Change, 33, 109-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.04.012
  5. Climate Action Tracker. (2024). Country ratings. Retrieved January 27, 2025, from https://climateactiontracker.org/cat-data-explorer/country-ratings/
  6. Climate Transparency. (2020). Climate transparency report: Comparing G20 climate action and responses to the COVID-19 crisis. Retrieved from https://www.climate-transparency.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Climate-Transparency-Report-2020.pdf
  7. Climate Transparency. (2022). G20 climate performance report 2022. Retrieved from https://www.climate-transparency.org/g20-climate-performance/g20report2022
  8. Cohen, G., Jalles, J. T., Loungani, P., Marto, R., & Wang, G. (2019). Decoupling of emissions and GDP: Evidence from aggregate and provincial Chinese data. Energy Economics, 77, 105-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2018.03.030
  9. Dinda, S. (2004). Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: a survey. Ecological economics, 49(4), 431-455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.02.011
  10. Hamilton, J. D. (1989). A new approach to the economic analysis of nonstationary time series and the business cycle. Econometrica: Journal of the econometric society, 357-384. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912559
  11. Heutel, G. (2012). How should environmental policy respond to business cycles? Optimal policy under persistent productivity shocks. Review of Economic Dynamics, 15(2), 244-264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.red.2011.05.002
  12. Huang, X., & Jorgenson, A. K. (2018). The asymmetrical effects of economic development on consumption-based and production-based carbon dioxide emissions, 1990 to 2014. Socius, 4, 2378023118773626. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023118773
  13. Khan, H., Metaxoglou, K., Knittel, C. R., & Papineau, M. (2019). Carbon emissions and business cycles. Journal of Macroeconomics, 60, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmacro.2019.01.005
  14. Klarl, T. (2020). The response of CO2 emissions to the business cycle: New evidence for the US. Energy Economics, 85 104560 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2019.104560
  15. Narayan, P. K., & Narayan, S. (2010). Carbon dioxide emissions and economic growth: Panel data evidence from developing countries. Energy policy, 38(1), 661-666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.09.005
  16. Rosa, E. A., & Dietz, T. (2012). Human drivers of national greenhouse-gas emissions. Nature Climate Change, 2(8), 581-586.
  17. Shahiduzzaman, M., & Layton, A. (2015). Changes in CO2 emissions over business cycle recessions and expansions in the United States: A decomposition analysis. Applied Energy, 150, 25-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.04.007
  18. Sheldon, T. L. (2017). Asymmetric effects of the business cycle on carbon dioxide emissions. Energy Economics, 61, 289-297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2016.11.025
  19. York, R. (2012). Asymmetric effects of economic growth and decline on CO2 emissions. Nature Climate Change, 2(11), 762-764.