Journals / Sosyoekonomi / 2017 / Cilt: 25 - Sayı: 32

The Effect of Instituonal Quality on Environmental Performance at Different Levels of Development: An Emprical Analysis

Farklı Gelişmişlik Düzeylerinde Kurumsal Kalitenin Çevre Performansı Üzerindeki Etkisi: Ampirik Bir Analiz

Pages
189–212
Publication Date
2017-04-30
DOI
—
🏛️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)

According to results, the positive effect of political stabilty, governance quality and democratic development on the environmental performance does not depends at the countries’ development stage.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Environment is one of the most important possibilities granted to mankind to maintain vital presence.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this context, the annual data of 124 countries for the period 2000-2014 were analyzed by static and dynamic panel data analysis Contrary to other studies, both the organizational structure and the environment are defined in a broad sense in this study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:According to results, the positive effect of political stabilty, governance quality and democratic development on the environmental performance does not depends at the countries’ development stage.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2000-2014 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Politik İstikrar · Yönetişim Kalitesi · Demokrasi

Abstract

Environment is one of the most important possibilities granted to mankind to maintain vital presence. The environment is based on perfect balance. Ironically, the most important threat to this board equilibrium is humanity. On the other hand, people build a number of institutions to meet their needs, to determine the rules of their relations and to establish harmonious relations with the environment. These institutional constructions, which are the common product of the rational human mind, are also the safeguards of the common living space of mankind. The purpose of this study is to test this claim empirically. In this context, the annual data of 124 countries for the period 2000-2014 were analyzed by static and dynamic panel data analysis Contrary to other studies, both the organizational structure and the environment are defined in a broad sense in this study. According to results, the positive effect of political stabilty, governance quality and democratic development on the environmental performance does not depends at the countries’ development stage.

Özet

Yaşamsal varlığını sürdürmek için insanlığa lütfedilmiş en önemli imkânlardan biri çevredir. Çevre kusursuz denge üzerine kuruludur. İronik bir şekilde, bu kurulu dengenin en önemli tehdidi insanlıktır. Öte yandan insanlar ihtiyaçlarını karşılamak, kendi aralarındaki ilişkilerin kurallarını belirlemek ve çevreyle uyumlu ilişki kurmak için bir takım kurumlar inşa ederler. Rasyonel insan aklının ortak ürünü olan bu kurumsal yapılar insanlığın ortak yaşam alanı olan çevrenin de güvencesidir. Bu çalışmanın amacı bu iddiayı ampirik olarak sınamaktır. Bu kapsamda 124 ülkenin 2000-2014 dönemi yıllık verileri statik ve dinamik panel veri analizleri ile analiz edilmiştir. Diğer çalışmalardan farklı olarak bu çalışmada hem kurumsal yapı hem de çevre geniş anlamda tanımlanmıştır. Analiz sonuçlarına göre; politik istikrar, yönetişim kalitesi ve demokratik gelişme çevresel performansı arttırmaktadır. Ayrıca kurumsal kalitenin çevre performansı üzerindeki pozitif etkisi ülkelerin gelişmişlik düzeylerine göre değişmemektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

TOPAL, M. H., HAYALOĞLU, P. (2017). The Effect of Instituonal Quality on Environmental Performance at Different Levels of Development: An Emprical Analysis. Sosyoekonomi, Cilt: 25 - Sayı: 32, 189–212. https://ajindex.com/articles/139385

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (18)

  1. Akın, C. S. (2014). Kurumsal kalitenin çevre üzerine olan etkileri: BRICS ülkeleri üzerine bir uygulama, Uluslararası Alanya İşletme Fakültesi, 6(2), 1-8. Arellano M. & Bond, S. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: monte carlo evidence and an application to employment equations, The Review of Economic Studies, 58 (2), 277-97.
  2. Arellano, M. & Bover, O. (1995). Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models, Journal of Econometrics, 68 (1), 29-51.
  3. Aron, J. (2000). Growth and institutions: a review of the evidence, The World Bank Research Observer, 15(1), 99–135.
  4. Aslaksen, S. (2010). Oil and democracy: more than a cross-country correlation?, Journal of Peace Research 47(4), 421-31.
  5. Bal, H., Algan, N. & Özdemir, P. (2015). Yeni kurumsalcı perspektifte çevresel yönetişim ve kurumsal çerçevenin önemi. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 16(2), 179-191.
  6. Baltagi, H. B. (2014), Econonometric Analysis of Panel Data (5th Edition), Wiley, UK. Barrett, S. & Graddy, K. (2000). Freedom, growth, and the environment, Environment and Development Economics, 5(4), 433-56.
  7. Bernauer, T. & Koubi, V. (2009). Effects of political institutions on air quality. Ecological Economics, 68(5), 1355-1365.
  8. Blundell, R. & Bond, S. (1998). Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models, Journal of Econometrics, 87(1), 115-43.
  9. Carlsson, F. & Lundström, S. (2001). Political and economic freedom and the environment: the case of CO2 emissions, Working Papers in Economics, No 29, (second version), August 2001,
  10. Department of Economics, Göteborg University. Congleton, R. D. (1992). Political institutions and pollution control, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 74(3), 412–421.
  11. Greene, W. H. (2012), Econometric Analysis (seventh edition), Pearson, Boston. Grossman G. M. & Krueger A. B. (1991). Environmental impacts of a north american free trade agreement, NBER Working Paper Series, 3914. Gujarati, N. D. (2003),
  12. Basic Econometrics, McGraw Hill Educations, New York. Hausman, J. A. (1978),
  13. Specification tests in econometrics, Econometrica, 46 (6), 1251-71.
  14. Jalil, A. & Mahmud, S. F. (2009). Environment Kuznets curve for CO2 emissions: a cointegration analysis for China, Energy Policy, 37(12), 5167-72.
  15. Kasper, W. (2007).
  16. Ekonomik Özgürlük ve Gelişme, Mülkiyet Hakları, Rekabet Ve Refah Üzerine Bir İnceleme, (Çev. Bahadır Akın), Liberte Yayınları,
  17. Ankara.
  18. Kinda, S. R. (2011). Democratic institutions and environmental quality: effects and