SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi SBE Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 16 Sayı: 2

The transformation of public finance in the face of the climate crisis: Socio-political dynamics and the case of Türkiye

İklim krizi karşısında kamu maliyesinin dönüşümü: Sosyo-politik dinamikler ve Türkiye örneği

Sercan Yavan(AYDIN ADNAN MENDERES ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-9873-5931
Pages
886–902
Publication Date
2026-06-29
🏛️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 results indicate that existing fiscal policies remain insufficient to address the economic and social costs of climate change.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Climate change has exceeded the traditional boundaries of public finance, making it necessary to reconsider tax, expenditure, and budgetary policies.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The aim of this study is to examine the implications of the climate crisis for public finance within a theoretical and analytical framework and to discuss how fiscal policy instruments can be transformed in response to these challenges.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results indicate that existing fiscal policies remain insufficient to address the economic and social costs of climate change.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Kamu Maliyesi · İklim Değişikliği · Karbon Vergisi

Abstract

Climate change has exceeded the traditional boundaries of public finance, making it necessary to reconsider tax, expenditure, and budgetary policies. The aim of this study is to examine the implications of the climate crisis for public finance within a theoretical and analytical framework and to discuss how fiscal policy instruments can be transformed in response to these challenges. The study adopts a qualitative research approach, and the findings obtained from international academic studies, policy reports, and institutional publications are analyzed in light of Türkiye’s recent experiences in climate finance. The results indicate that existing fiscal policies remain insufficient to address the economic and social costs of climate change. In this context, carbon pricing, environmental taxation, public investment, and green budgeting practices should be designed within a comprehensive fiscal architecture. Furthermore, climate finance policies should aim not only at environmental effectiveness but also at social justice, fiscal sustainability, and societal resilience. For Türkiye, key policy priorities include developing carbon pricing mechanisms, increasing public expenditures for climate adaptation, and institutionalizing green classifications within budgetary processes. This approach offers a comprehensive fiscal policy framework that can enhance the effectiveness of climate policies.

Özet

İklim değişikliği, kamu maliyesinin geleneksel sınırlarını aşarak vergi, harcama ve bütçe politikalarının yeniden değerlendirilmesini gerekli kılmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, iklim krizinin kamu maliyesi üzerindeki etkilerini kuramsal ve analitik bir çerçevede ele almak ve maliye politikası araçlarının hangi yönlerden dönüştürülebileceğini tartışmaktır. Araştırmada nitel araştırma yaklaşımı benimsenmiş; uluslararası akademik çalışmalar, politika raporları ve kurumsal yayınlardan elde edilen bulgular Türkiye’nin iklim maliyesine ilişkin güncel deneyimleri çerçevesinde analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular, mevcut maliye politikalarının iklim değişikliğinin ekonomik ve sosyal maliyetlerini karşılamada yetersiz kaldığını göstermektedir. Bu kapsamda karbon fiyatlaması, çevresel vergiler, kamu yatırımları ve yeşil bütçeleme uygulamalarının bütüncül bir mali mimari içinde tasarlanması gerektiği ortaya konulmaktadır. Ayrıca iklim maliyesi politikalarının yalnızca çevresel etkinliği değil, aynı zamanda sosyal adalet, mali sürdürülebilirlik ve toplumsal dayanıklılık hedeflerini de gözetmesi gerektiği vurgulanmaktadır. Türkiye açısından karbon fiyatlaması mekanizmalarının geliştirilmesi, iklim uyumuna yönelik kamu harcamalarının artırılması ve bütçe süreçlerinde yeşil sınıflandırmaların kurumsallaştırılması temel politika öncelikleri olarak değerlendirilmektedir. Bu yaklaşım, iklim politikalarının etkinliğini artırabilecek bütüncül bir maliye politikası çerçevesi sunmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Yavan, S. (2026). The transformation of public finance in the face of the climate crisis: Socio-political dynamics and the case of Türkiye. Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi SBE Dergisi, Cilt: 16 Sayı: 2, 886–902. https://doi.org/10.30783/nevsosbilen.1927818

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (94)

  1. Adger, W. N. (2000). Social and ecological resilience: Are they related? Progress in Human Geography, 24(3), 347-364. https://doi.org/10.1191/030913200701540465
  2. Aktaş Çimen, Z. (2024). Sınırda karbon düzenlemesi ve seçilmiş sektörlerde Türkiye’nin küresel rekabet gücü. Politik Ekonomik Kuram, 8(1), 1-17.
  3. Ameli, N., Kothari, S., & Rickman, J. (2023). Addressing inequities in low-carbon finance flows toward developing countries. One Earth, 6(10), 1277-1280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2023.09.010
  4. Arruda Filho, M. T. de, Torres, P. H. C., & Jacobi, P. R. (2024). A systematic review of the literature on climate justice: A comparison between the Global North and South. Sustainability, 16(22), 9888. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16229888
  5. Bağcı, A., & Söğüt, Y. (2023). Avrupa Birliği Yeşil Mutabakatı’ndan hareketle çevresel sürdürülebilirliğe ulaşmada emisyon ticaret sistemi ve sınırda karbon düzenlemesi mekanizmasının rolü: Türkiye üzerine ampirik bir araştırma. G. G. Göksu & E. Eroğlu (Ed.), Kamu maliye politikaları perspektifinden çevresel sürdürülebilir kalkınma içinde (ss. 97-126). T.C. Sayıştay Başkanlığı.
  6. Bagherzadeh, M., & Shigemitsu, M. (2021). Building the resilience of Turkey’s agricultural sector to droughts (OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Paper No. 167). OECD Publishing.
  7. Batten, S., Sowerbutts, R., & Tanaka, M. (2020). Climate change: Macroeconomic impact and implications for monetary policy. In Ecological, societal, and technological risks and the financial sector. Bank of England.
  8. Berger, J., & Liebe, U. (2025). Effective climate action must address both social inequality and inequality aversion. npj Climate Action, 4, 1.
  9. Bird, N., Beloe, T., Hedger, M., Lee, J., Nicholson, K., O’Donnell, M., Gooty, S., Heikens, A., Steele, P., Mackay, A., & Miller, M. (2012). The Climate Public Expenditure and Institutional Review (CPEIR): A methodology to review climate policy, institutions and expenditure. United Nations Development Programme & Overseas Development Institute.
  10. Birkmann, J., Liwenga, E., Pandey, R., Boyd, E., Djalante, R., Gemenne, F., Leal Filho, W., Pinho, P. F., Stringer, L., & Wrathall, D. (2022). Poverty, livelihoods and sustainable development. In H.-O. Pörtner et al. (Eds.), Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability (pp. 1171-1274). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009325844.010
  11. Bowen, A. (2021). Green public investment. World Bank.
  12. Boyce, J. K., & Bradley, O. R. (2025). Climate policy on thin ice: A lesson from Canada. Common Dreams. https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/cap-and-dividend-canada
  13. Bozhenko, V., Buriak, A., Bozhenko, A., & Roienko, O. (2023). Transparency and corruption prevention in financing climate action. Financial Markets, Institutions and Risks, 7(2), 88-94. https://doi.org/10.21272/fmir.7(2).88-94
  14. Campigotto, N., D’Alessandro, S., & Distefano, T. (2025). Climate adaptation and fiscal sustainability: When timing matters. Italian Economic Journal. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40797-025-00345-2
  15. Carattini, S., Carvalho, M., & Fankhauser, S. (2018). Overcoming public resistance to carbon taxes. WIREs Climate Change, 9(5), e531. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.531
  16. Carlitz, R. (2012). Improving transparency and accountability in the budget process: An assessment of recent initiatives. Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office.
  17. Chancel, L., Bothe, P., & Voituriez, T. (2023). Climate inequality report 2023 (World Inequality Lab Study 2023/1). World Inequality Lab.
  18. Chisadza, C., Clance, M., Sheng, X., & Gupta, R. (2023). Climate change and inequality: Evidence from the United States. Sustainability, 15(6), 5322. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065322
  19. Climate Change Committee. (2025). Progress in adapting to climate change: 2025 report. https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/progress-in-adapting-to-climate-change-2025/
  20. Coalition of Finance Ministers for Climate Action. (2022). Driving climate action through economic and fiscal policy and practice.
  21. Cowen, N. (2022). Neoliberal social justice and taxation. Social Philosophy & Policy, 39(1), 68-89. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265052523000055
  22. D’Orazio, P. (2025). Addressing climate risks through fiscal policy in emerging and developing economies. Energy Research & Social Science, 119, 103852. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2024.103852
  23. Del Ponte, A., Masiliūnas, A., & Lim, N. (2023). Information about historical emissions drives the division of climate change mitigation costs. Nature Communications, 14, 1408.
  24. Delgado, R., Eguino, H., & Lopes, A. (Eds.). (2021). Fiscal policy and climate change: Recent experiences of finance ministries in Latin America and the Caribbean. Inter-American Development Bank.
  25. Dicker, S., Unsworth, S., Byrnes, R., & Ward, B. (2021). Saving lives and livelihoods: The benefits of investments in climate change adaptation and resilience. Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
  26. Dolan, F., Price, C. C., Lempert, R. J., Patel, K. V., Sytsma, T., Park, H. M., De Leon, F., Bond, C. A., Miro, M. E., & Lauland, A. (2023). The budgetary effects of climate change and their potential influence on legislation (Research Report RR-A2614-1). RAND Corporation.
  27. Emmerling, J., Andreoni, P., Charalampidis, I., Dasgupta, S., Dennig, F., Feindt, S.,. Tavoni, M. (2024). A multi-model assessment of inequality and climate change. Nature Climate Change, 14, 1254-1260. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-024-02151-7
  28. Endegnanew, Y., Goncalves, R. D., Mann, S., Tavares, M. M., & Zavarce, H. (2025). The macroeconomic and welfare benefits of building resilience in disaster-prone developing countries (IMF Working Paper No. 25/13). International Monetary Fund. https://doi.org/10.5089/9798400296789.001
  29. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Princeton University Press.
  30. European Commission. (2021). Green budgeting: Towards common principles. Publications Office of the European Union.
  31. Fang, Y., Lee, C.-C., & Li, X. (2025). Financing a sustainable future. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12, 921. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-04939-0
  32. Ferro, P., Jaramillo, M., Delgado, R., Almeida, D., & Rodríguez, G. (2020). Climate commitments and national budgets: Identification and alignment (Technical Note IDB-TN-01982). Inter-American Development Bank.
  33. Flues, F., & van Dender, K. (2020). Carbon pricing design: Effectiveness, efficiency and feasibility (OECD Taxation Working Papers No. 48). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/91ad6a1e-en
  34. French Government. (2024). The French green budget: A transparency tool to serve the ecological transition. https://www.budget.gouv.fr/reperes/green_budgeting/articles/the-french-green-budget-a
  35. Gagliardi, N., Arévalo, P., & Pamies, S. (2022). The fiscal impact of extreme weather and climate events: Evidence for EU countries (Working Paper 168). European Commission.
  36. Giovanis, E., & Ozdamar, O. (2022). The impact of climate change on budget balances and debt in the Middle East and North Africa region. Climatic Change, 172, 34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-022-03388-x
  37. Goulder, L. H. (1995). Environmental taxation and the double dividend. International Tax and Public Finance, 2(2), 157-183. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00877495
  38. Green Climate Fund. (2022). Update of the Green Climate Fund strategic plan 2024-2027. https://www.greenclimate.fund
  39. Greselin, A. (2022). Assessing heat vulnerability and adaptive capacity in the context of the Nordic welfare state (Discussion Paper 35/2022). Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare.
  40. Heins, E., & Dukelow, F. (2022). Liberal welfare states. In B. Greve (Ed.), De Gruyter handbook of contemporary welfare states (pp. 85-100). De Gruyter.
  41. Hemerijck, A., & Patuzzi, L. (2021). Diversifying social investment: European welfare states and immigrant integration. Migration Policy Institute Europe.
  42. Hopkin, J. (2022). The politics of tax justice in democracies. LSE Public Policy Review, 2(4), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.31389/lseppr.74
  43. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2022). Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Cambridge University Press.
  44. International Energy Agency. (2021). World energy outlook 2021.
  45. International Labour Organization. (2023). Social protection for a just transition.
  46. International Monetary Fund. (2021). Strengthening infrastructure governance for climate-responsive public investment.
  47. Joltreau, E., & Sommerfeld, K. (2018). Why does emissions trading under the EU ETS not affect firms’ competitiveness? Climate Policy, 19(4), 453-471. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2018.1502145
  48. Jonsson, S., Ydstedt, A., & Asen, E. (2020). Looking back on 30 years of carbon taxes in Sweden (Fiscal Fact No. 727). Tax Foundation.
  49. Kavut, S. (2025). İklim değişikliğinin Türkiye’de belediyelerin kurumsal yapıları üzerindeki etkileri. KMÜ Sosyal ve Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 27(48), 251-265.
  50. Khoirunurrofik, Zen, F., Sofiyandi, Y., Kurniawan, Y. R., Dewi, C. E., & Abdul, F. (2024). Financing the green and just energy transition. In F. Zen et al. (Eds.), Fiscal policy to support the green and just energy transition. ERIA.
  51. Lis, E. M., & Nickel, C. (2009). The impact of extreme weather events on budget balances (Working Paper 1055). European Central Bank.
  52. Maestre-Andrés, S., Drews, S., Savin, I., & van den Bergh, J. (2021). Carbon tax acceptability with information provision and mixed revenue uses. Nature Communications, 12, 7017. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-27380-8
  53. Malerba, D. (2022). Just transitions: A review of how to decarbonise energy systems. Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik.
  54. Mazzucato, M. (2013). The entrepreneurial state: Debunking public vs. private sector myths. Anthem Press.
  55. Mildenberger, M., Lachapelle, E., Harrison, K., & Stadelmann-Steffen, I. (2022). Limited impacts of carbon tax rebate programmes. Nature Climate Change, 12, 141-147. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01268-3
  56. Milotay, N., Noonan, E., Chircop, D., Müller, K., Navarra, C., & Pasikowska-Schnass, M. (2022). EU welfare systems and the challenges of poverty and inequality. European Parliamentary Research Service.
  57. Musgrave, R. A. (1959). The theory of public finance. McGraw-Hill.
  58. Network for Greening the Financial System. (2024). The green transition and the macroeconomy: A monetary policy perspective.
  59. Nordhaus, W. D. (2015). Climate clubs. American Economic Review, 105(4), 1339-1370. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.15000001
  60. OECD. (2021a). Green budgeting in OECD countries. OECD Publishing.
  61. OECD. (2021b). Green budget tagging: Introductory guidance & principles. OECD Publishing.
  62. OECD. (2022). OECD Journal on Budgeting, 2022(2). OECD Publishing.
  63. OECD. (2024). Infrastructure for a climate-resilient future. OECD Publishing.
  64. Özdemir, H. (2025). Kamu maliyesinde yeşil dönüşüm. Sayıştay Dergisi, 36(138), 545-573.
  65. Pigou, A. C. (1920). The economics of welfare. Macmillan.
  66. Pojar, S. (2023). How green budgeting is embedded in national budget processes (Discussion Paper 196). European Commission.
  67. Pollin, R. (2023). Fossil fuel industry phase-out and just transition. PERI Working Paper.
  68. Qu, J., Ding, W., & Li, J. (2025). Can government budget management reconcile environmental governance? Sustainability, 17(8), 3720.
  69. Rajkumar, A. S., & Swaroop, V. (2008). Public spending and outcomes. Journal of Development Economics, 86(1), 96-111.
  70. Rezai, A., Taylor, L., & Foley, D. (2017). Economic growth, income distribution and climate change. SCEPA.
  71. Resmî Gazete. (2025). İklim Kanunu (Kanun No. 7552). Sayı: 32951, 9 Temmuz 2025.
  72. Roberts, J. T., & Parks, B. C. (2007). A climate of injustice. MIT Press.
  73. Sadler, A., Ranger, N., Fankhauser, S., Marotta, F., & O’Callaghan, B. (2024). Fiscal spending and climate adaptation. Nature Sustainability, 7(3), 270-281.
  74. Salmon-Genel, M. (2025). Assessing the macro-fiscal risks from climate change. European Commission.
  75. Santos, G., Behrendt, H., Maconi, L., Shirvani, T., & Teytelboym, A. (2010). Externalities and economic policies in road transport. Research in Transportation Economics, 28(1), 2-45.
  76. Socol, A., Iuga, H., Socol, D., & Iuga, I. C. (2023). Climate change and healthcare costs in the EU. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 11, 1286099.
  77. Stern, N. (2006). The economics of climate change: The Stern review. HM Treasury.
  78. Taranto, Y., & Dinçel, G. (2019). Türkiye’de enerji dönüşümünün finansmanı. SHURA Enerji Dönüşümü Merkezi.
  79. Teixidó, J., Verde, S. F., & Nicolli, F. (2019). EU ETS and technological change. Ecological Economics, 164, 106347.
  80. Tepekule, U., & Köslü, G. (2023). Yeşil bütçeleme yaklaşımı ve Türkiye. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 59, 373-406.
  81. Tombe, T., & Winter, J. (2024). Does emissions pricing hurt affordability? IRPP Study No. 94.
  82. Tsarouhas, D. (2024). Turkey’s green transformation and the CBAM. ELIAMEP Policy Paper.
  83. Türkiye Cumhuriyet Merkez Bankası. (2025). Enflasyon raporu 2025-II.
  84. UNFCCC. (2015). The Paris agreement. https://unfccc.int
  85. UNFCCC. (2023). Updated first nationally determined contribution. https://unfccc.int
  86. Verde, S. F., & Borghesi, S. (2022). The international dimension of the EU ETS. Environmental and Resource Economics, 83(1), 23-46.
  87. Vergi Konseyi. (2023). Yeşil vergileme: Uluslararası gelişmeler, sorunlar ve çözüm önerileri. T.C. Hazine ve Maliye Bakanlığı.
  88. Wagner, P. M., Torney, D., & Ylä-Anttila, T. (2021). Governing climate policy implementation networks. Environmental Policy and Governance, 31(5), 417-431.
  89. Weitzman, M. L. (2014). Negotiating a uniform carbon price. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 1(1-2), 29-49.
  90. World Bank. (2020). Transformative climate finance. World Bank.
  91. World Bank Group. (2019). Climate change and environmental risks and opportunities. World Bank.
  92. World Health Organization. (2023). Climate change and health. https://www.who.int
  93. Zahnow, R., Yousefnia, A. R., Hassankhani, M., & Cheshmehzangi, A. (2025). Climate change inequalities. Environmental Science & Policy, 165, 104021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104021
  94. Emmerling, J., Andreoni, P., Charalampidis, I., Dasgupta, S., Dennig, F., Feindt, S.,. Tavoni, M. (2024). A multi-model assessment of inequality and climate change. Nature Climate Change, 14, 1254-1260. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-024-02151-7