SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Uluslararası Ekonomi Siyaset İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 9 Sayı: 4

Are Energy and Transport Taxes Drivers or Outcomes of Economic Development? Panel Fourier Causality Evidence from the EU

Enerji ve Ulaşım Vergileri Ekonomik Gelişmenin Belirleyicisi mi Yoksa Sonucu mu? Avrupa Birliği’nden Panel Fourier Nedensellik Bulguları

Şerife Özşahin(Necmettin Erbakan University)0000-0001-8310-1816
Betül Gümüş0000-0001-6939-2557
Mustafa Acar(NECMETTIN ERBAKAN UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-7426-6747
Pages
298–317
Publication Date
2026-07-16
🏛️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 that causality from energy taxes to GDP per capita is valid only for Luxembourg, whereas causality from GDP per capita to energy tax revenues is identified for Austria, Estonia, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Slovenia, and Spain.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The impact of environmental taxes on economic development has become a central issue in academic and policy debates in recent years, driven by increasing environmental challenges and sustainability concerns.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study examines the causal relationship between real GDP per capita and energy and transport tax revenues in 26 European Union member states over the period 1995–2024.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The empirical findings reveal that causality from energy taxes to GDP per capita is valid only for Luxembourg, whereas causality from GDP per capita to energy tax revenues is identified for Austria, Estonia, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Slovenia, and Spain.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2024 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Çevre Vergisi · Enerji ve Ulaşım Vergisi · Panel Fourier KPSS Durağanlık Testi

Abstract

The impact of environmental taxes on economic development has become a central issue in academic and policy debates in recent years, driven by increasing environmental challenges and sustainability concerns. In particular, energy and transport taxes have emerged as key policy instruments for reducing environmental externalities and increasing public revenues. However, there is no clear consensus in the literature regarding the effects of energy and transport taxes on real GDP per capita. This study examines the causal relationship between real GDP per capita and energy and transport tax revenues in 26 European Union member states over the period 1995–2024. The econometric analysis is conducted using panel Fourier KPSS stationary and panel Fourier Toda-Yamamoto causality methods, which allow for modeling smooth structural changes without requiring prior assumptions about the timing, number, or form of structural breaks. The empirical findings reveal that causality from energy taxes to GDP per capita is valid only for Luxembourg, whereas causality from GDP per capita to energy tax revenues is identified for Austria, Estonia, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Slovenia, and Spain. Regarding transport taxes, causality from transport taxes to GDP per capita is observed in Denmark, Finland, and Latvia, while causality from GDP per capita to transport taxes is detected in Belgium, Finland, and Latvia. Notably, the bidirectional causality identified for Latvia and Finland indicates a mutual interaction between the transport sector and real GDP per capita in these two countries.

Özet

Artan çevresel sorunlar ve sürdürülebilir kalkınma hedefleri doğrultusunda, çevre vergilerinin ekonomik gelişme üzerindeki etkisi son yıllarda akademik ve politik tartışmaların merkezinde yer almaktadır. Özellikle enerji ve ulaşım vergileri, çevresel dışsal maliyetlerin içselleştirilmesi ve kamu gelirlerinin artırılması açısından önemli politika araçları olarak öne çıkmaktadır. Bununla birlikte, enerji ve ulaşım vergilerinin reel kişi başı gelir üzerindeki etkisine ilişkin literatürde kesin bir görüş birliği bulunmamaktadır. Bu çalışma, 1995–2024 döneminde Avrupa Birliği’ne üye 26 ülkede kişi başına reel GSYH ile enerji ve ulaşım vergisi gelirleri arasındaki nedensellik ilişkisini analiz etmektedir. Ekonometrik analizler yapısal kırılmaların zamanı, sayısı ve biçimine ilişkin önsel varsayımlara ihtiyaç duymadan yumuşak geçişli yapısal değişimleri modelleyen panel Fourier KPSS durağanlık ve panel Fourier Toda-Yamamoto nedensellik yöntemleri ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Elde edilen bulgular enerji vergilerinden ekonomik büyümeye doğru nedenselliğin yalnızca Lüksemburg’da, kişi başına gelirden enerji vergisi gelirlerine doğru nedenselliğin ise İrlanda, Fransa, Avusturya, Slovenya, Estonya, İspanya ve Hollanda’da geçerli olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Ulaşım vergilerine ilişkin bulgularda ise ulaşım vergilerinden kişi başına gelire doğru nedensellik Danimarka, Letonya ve Finlandiya’da gözlenirken; kişi başına gelirden ulaşım vergilerine doğru nedensellik Belçika, Finlandiya ve Letonya’da tespit edilmiştir. Özellikle Letonya ve Finlandiya için elde edilen çift yönlü nedensellik bulgusu, ulaştırma sektörü ile kişi başına gelir arasında karşılıklı bir etkileşim olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Özşahin, Ş., Gümüş, B., Acar, M. (2026). Are Energy and Transport Taxes Drivers or Outcomes of Economic Development? Panel Fourier Causality Evidence from the EU. Uluslararası Ekonomi Siyaset İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 4, 298–317. https://doi.org/10.59445/ijephss.1952318

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (54)

  1. Abdullah, S., & Morley, B. (2014). Environmental taxes and economic growth: Evidence from panel causality tests. Energy economics, 42, 27-33.
  2. Ahmad, M. I., Ur Rehman, R., Naseem, M. A., & Ali, R. (2021). Do environmental taxes impede economic growth? A comparison between China and India. International Journal of Financial Engineering, 8(04), 2050023.
  3. Andrei, J., Mieila, M., Popescu, G. H., Nica, E., & Cristina, M. (2016). The impact and determinants of environmental taxation on economic growth communities in Romania. Energies, 9(11), 902.
  4. Aydin, M., Degirmenci, T., Ahmed, Z., & Apergis, N. (2025). Do the energy taxes, green technological innovation, and energy productivity enable the green energy transition in EU countries? Evidence from novel panel data estimators. Renewable Energy, 249, 123236.
  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.
  6. Bedir, S., & Güneş, H. (2016). Çevre vergileri ve ekonomik büyüme arasındaki ilişki: AB ülkeleri için eşbütünleşme ve nedensellik analizleri. Finans Politik ve Ekonomik Yorumlar, (616), 9-21.
  7. Begu, L. S., Mester, I. T., Simut, R., Sehleanu, M., & Perticas, D. (2019). Economic and Environmental Implications of Energy Taxes: Evidence from Romania. Economic Computation & Economic Cybernetics Studies & Research, 53(3).
  8. Bradley, J. (1992). "Modelling the Economic Effects of Energy Taxes: A Survey", in The Economic Effects of Carbon Taxes, (ed.) J. Fitz Gerald, Policy Research Paper No. 14, Dublin: The Economic & Social Research Institute, pp. 35-52.
  9. Breusch, T., & Pagan, A. (1980). The lagrange multiplier test and its application to model specifications in econometrics. Reviews of Economics Studies, 47, 239–253.
  10. Enders, W., & Lee, J. (2012). A unit root test using a Fourier series to approximate smooth breaks. Oxford bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 74(4), 574-599.
  11. EUROSTAT, (2026a). https:// ec. europa. eu / eurostat/ data browser/ view /env_ac_tax__custom _2031 2831/ default / table, Erişim tarihi:07.05.2026.
  12. Gao, X., Zheng, H., Zhang, Y., & Golsanami, N. (2019). Tax policy, environmental concern and level of emission reduction. Sustainability, 11(4), 1047.
  13. Güler, İ. (2023). Avrupa Birliği Ülkelerinde Çevre Vergisi ve Ekonomik Büyüme Arasındaki İlişkinin Belirlenmesi. Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey Üniversitesi Sosyal ve Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 25(45), 1058-1073.
  14. Gümüş, B., Özşahin, Ş., & Acar, M. (2026). The role of human capital and renewable energy in the context of the relationship between environmental taxes and economic performance: The case of the EU. In M. Manga (Ed.), International research in the field of macroeconomics-I (pp. 47–73). Eğitim Yayınevi.
  15. Hadri, K. (2000). Testing for stationarity in heterogeneous panel data. The econometrics journal, 3(2), 148-161.
  16. Hadri, K., & Kurozumi, E. (2011). A locally optimal test for no unit root in cross-sectionally dependent panel data.
  17. Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics, 165-184.
  18. Hadri, K., & Kurozumi, E. (2012). A simple panel stationarity test in the presence of serial correlation and a common factor. Economics Letters, 115(1), 31-34.
  19. Halidu, O. B., Iddrisu, A. A., Djan, G. O., Soku, M. G., & Appiah, K. P. (2025). Revisiting the Economic Growth Effects of Environmental Taxes: Empirical Evidence from Global Level. Journal of Tax Reform. 11(3), 548-575.
  20. Hassan, M., Oueslati, W., & Rousselière, D. (2020). Environmental taxes, reforms and economic growth: an empirical analysis of panel data. Economic Systems, 44(3), 100806.
  21. Hassan, M., Oueslati, W., & Rousselière, D. (2022). Energy taxes and economic growth in OECD countries: a simultaneous equations approach. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 11(2), 172-195.
  22. Inceiplik, G. K., & Simsek, O. (2024). Role of green taxes on economic growth goals of sustainable development directly and through environmental performance: A system GMM approach. Journal of Economy Culture and Society, (69), 56-65.
  23. Jain, A., & Ghosh, S. (2013). Dynamics of Global Oil Prices, Exchange Rate and Precious Metal Prices in India, Resources Policy, 38 (1), 88-93.
  24. Kwiatkowski, D., Phillips, P. C. B., Schmidt, P., & Shin, Y. (1992). Testing the null hypothesis of stationarity against the alternative of a unit root: How sure are we that economic time series have a unit root?. Journal of Econometrics, 54(1-3), 159-178.
  25. Lee, J., & Strazicich, M. C. (2004). Minimum LM Unit Root Test with One Structural Break, Manuscript, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University, 1-16.
  26. Li, P., Lin, Z., Du, H., Feng, T., & Zuo, J. (2021). Do environmental taxes reduce air pollution? Evidence from fossil-fuel power plants in China. Journal of environmental management, 295, 113112.
  27. Loganathan, N., Shahbaz, M., & Taha, R. (2014). The link between green taxation and economic growth on CO₂ emissions: fresh evidence from Malaysia. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 38, 1083-1091.
  28. McDougall, R. A., & Dixon, P. B. (1996). Analysing the economy-wide effects of the energy tax: results for Australia from the ORANI-E model.
  29. Meireles, M., Robaina, M., & Magueta, D. (2021). The effectiveness of environmental taxes in reducing CO₂ emissions in passenger vehicles: The case of Mediterranean countries. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(10), 5442.
  30. Mirović, V., Kalaš, B., & Milenković, N. (2021). Panel cointegration analysis of total environmental taxes and economic growth in EU countries. Economic Analysis, 54(1), 92-103.
  31. Mirović, V., Kalaš, B., Andrašić, J., & Milenković, N. (2023). Implications of environmental taxation for economic growth and government expenditures in visegrad group countries. Polit. Ekon, 71(4), 422-446.
  32. Nazlioglu, S., Görmüş A., & Soytaş, U. (2016). Oil Prices and Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITS): Gradualshift Causality and Volatility Transmission Analysis. Energy Economics, 60, 168-175.
  33. Nazlioglu, S., & Karul, C. (2017). A panel stationarity test with gradual structural shifts: Re-investigate the international commodity price shocks. Economic Modelling, 61, 181-192.
  34. Nguyen, Q. K., Tran, D. L., & Phan, T. M. H. (2026). Balancing growth and green goals: how environmental tax influences FDI, economic growth, and carbon efficiency in developing countries. Economic Change and Restructuring, 59(2), 36.
  35. Nong, D. (2018). General equilibrium economy-wide impacts of the increased energy taxes in Vietnam. Energy Policy, 123, 471-481.
  36. Obwori Alwago, W., David, D., Sgardea, F. M., & Marais, S. L. (2025). The effect of environmental tax on CO₂ emissions in Romania: an ARDL-linked cointegration approach. The Journal of Risk Finance, 26(3), 367-392.
  37. Othman, N., Hewage, R. S., Pyeman, J., & Ismail, F. R. (2023). Environmental Tax–Economic Growth Nexus in ASEAN-4 Countries. In BIO Web of Conferences (Vol. 73, p. 02005). EDP Sciences.
  38. Perron, P. (1989). The Great Crash, the Oil Price Shock, and the Unit Root Hypothesis. Econometrica, 57(6), 1361–1401.
  39. Perron, P. (1990). Testing for a unit root in a time series with a changing mean. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 8(2), 153-162.
  40. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. IZA Discussion Papers, Discussion Paper No. 1240, University of Cambridge. https://docs.iza.org/dp1240.pdf
  41. Pesaran, M. H., Ullah, A. ve Yamagata T. (2008). A bias-adjusted LM test of error cross-seciton ındependence, Econometrics Journal,11, 105-127.
  42. Radulescu, M., Sinisi, C. I., Popescu, C., Iacob, S. E., & Popescu, L. (2017). Environmental tax policy in Romania in the context of the EU: Double dividend theory. Sustainability, 9(11), 1986.
  43. Sharif, A., Kocak, S., Khan, H. H. A., Uzuner, G., & Tiwari, S. (2023). Demystifying the links between green technology innovation, economic growth, and environmental tax in ASEAN-6 countries: The dynamic role of green energy and green investment. Gondwana Research, 115, 98-106.
  44. Silajdzic, S., & Mehić, E. (2018). Do environmental taxes pay off? The impact of energy and transport taxes on CO₂ emissions in transition economies. The South East European Journal of Economics and Business, 13(2), 126-143.
  45. T.C. Ticaret Bakanligi [Ministry of Trade] (2023). https://ticaret. gov.tr/data/ 64f5ba7713b8769 d98615d86/AB %20ETS %20Bilgi%20Notu-23.08.2023.pdf. Accessed: 08.05.2026.
  46. Tchapchet-Tchouto, J. E., Koné, N., & Njoya, L. (2022). Investigating the effects of environmental taxes on economic growth: Evidence from empirical analysis in European countries. Environmental Economics, 13(1), 1.
  47. Toda, H.Y., & Yamamoto, T. (1995). Statistical Inference in Vector Autoregressions with Possibly Integrated Processes, Journal of Econometrics, 66, 225-250.
  48. UNCC, (2026). United Nations Climate Change, https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement. Erişim Tarihi: 30.04.2026.
  49. Wang, B., Liu, B., Niu, H., Liu, J., & Yao, S. (2018). Impact of energy taxation on economy, environmental and public health quality. Journal of environmental management, 206, 85-92.
  50. Xu, Y., Wen, S., & Tao, C. Q. (2023). Impact of environmental tax on pollution control: A sustainable development perspective. Economic Analysis and Policy, 79, 89-106.
  51. Yeboah, K. E., Feng, B., Jamatutu, S. A., Nyarko, F. E., & Justice, N. D. (2026). The interplay of environmental taxes, energy consumption and economic growth: A decarbonization pathway towards sustainable development. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1-24.
  52. Yilanci, V., & Gorus, M. S. (2020). Does economic globalization have predictive power for ecological footprint in MENA counties? A panel causality test with a Fourier function. Environmental science and pollution research, 27(32), 40552-40562.
  53. Zhang, Y., Xia, F., & Zhang, B. (2023). Can raising environmental tax reduce industrial water pollution? Firm-level evidence from China. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 101, 107155.
  54. Zivot, E., & Andrews, D. W. K. (1992). Further evidence on the great crash, the oil-price shock, and the unit-root hypothesis. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 10(3), 251–270.