Journals / Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi / 2017 / Cilt: 35 - Sayı: 4

THE ENVIRONMENT IN ECONOMIC GROWTH MODELS: AN APPLICATION BASED ON ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT

EKONOMİK BÜYÜME MODELLERİNDE ÇEVRE: EKOLOJİK AYAK İZİNİ ESAS ALAN BİR UYGULAMA

Pages
115–147
Publication Date
2022-10-18
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)

Results show that the effect of environment on GDP is greater in developing countries than in developed ones, meaning that environment protection will be more costly in developing countries.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study focuses on how environment is analysed in economic growth models and what results are obtained together with other production factors.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Within this framework, ecological footprint as an indicator of environment is used.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Results show that the effect of environment on GDP is greater in developing countries than in developed ones, meaning that environment protection will be more costly in developing countries.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Çevre ve ekonomik büyüme · ekolojik ayak izi · panel veri

Abstract

This study focuses on how environment is analysed in economic growth models and what results are obtained together with other production factors. Within this framework, ecological footprint as an indicator of environment is used. Later, the relationship between GDP and ecological footprint in developed and developing countries is econometrically analysed by using panel data techniques. Results show that the effect of environment on GDP is greater in developing countries than in developed ones, meaning that environment protection will be more costly in developing countries.

Özet

Bu çalışmada çevrenin ekonomik büyüme modellerinde nasıl ele alındığı ve üretim fonksiyonu yaklaşımı çerçevesinde diğer üretim faktörleriyle birlikte nasıl sonuçlar verdiği araştırılmıştır. Ampirik uygulama kısmında üretim fonksiyonu yaklaşımı çerçevesinde ekolojik ayak izi değişkeni ile ekonomik büyüme arasındaki ilişki gelişmiş ve gelişmekte olan ülkeler için panel veri yöntemleriyle analiz edilmiştir. Elde edilen sonuçlar gelişmekte olan ülkelerde çevre faktörünün hasıla üzerindeki etkisinin daha büyük olduğunu ve dolayısıyla çevreyi korumaya yönelik politikaların bu ülkelerde daha maliyetli olacağını göstermiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

ERDEM, E., ULUCAK, R. (2022). THE ENVIRONMENT IN ECONOMIC GROWTH MODELS: AN APPLICATION BASED ON ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT. Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 35 - Sayı: 4, 115–147. https://ajindex.com/articles/533015

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (18)

  1. Acemoglu, D., P. Aghion, L. Bursztyn, D. Hemous (2012), “Environment and Directed Technological Change”, American Economic Review, 102(1), 131-166.
  2. Aghion, P., P. Howit (1998),
  3. Endogenous Growth Theory, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
  4. Al-mulali, U. (2011), “Oil Consumption, CO2 Emission and Economic Growth in MENA Countries”, Energy, 36, 6165-6171.
  5. Apergis, N.,D. C. Danuletio (2014), “Renewable Energy and Economic Growth: Evidence From The Sign of Panel Long Run Causality”, International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 4(4), 578-587.
  6. Apergis, N., J.E. Payne (2011), “Renewable Energy Consumption-Growth Nexus in Central America”, Applied Energy, 88,343–347.
  7. Asafu-Adjaye, J. (2000), Environmental Economics for Non-Economists. Second Edition,.Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd. Asteriou, D., S.G. Hall. (2007), Applied Econometrics: a modern approach using eviews and microfit, New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Baltagi, B.H., C. Kao (2000), “Nonstationary Panels, Cointegration in Panels and Dynamic Panels: A Survey”, Advances in Econometrics, 15, 7-51.
  8. Baltagi, Badi H. (2014),
  9. Econometric Analysis of Panel Data, Fifth Edition,
  10. Wiley Publishes. Barbier, E.B. (1999), “Endogenous Growth and Natural Resource Scarcity”, Environmental and Resource Economics, 14, 51-74.
  11. Bartelmus, P. (2008), Quantitative Eco-nomics: How Sustainable Are Our Economies?, Springer. Becker, R.A. (1982), “Intergenerational Equity: The Capital-Environment Trade-Off”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 9, 165-185.
  12. Bi Zambe, N. (2014), “Natural Resources And Economic Growth in Cote D’ivoire”, Journal of Empirical Economics, 3(4), 212-220.
  13. Bildirici, M.E. (2014), “Relationship Between Biomass Energy And Economic Growth in Transition Countries: Panel ARDL Aproach”, Bioenergy, 6, 717-726.
  14. Bildirici, M.E., T. Bakirtas (2014),
  15. The Relationship Among oil, Natural Gas and Coal Consumption and Economic Growth in BRICTS (Brazil, Russian, India, China, Turkey and South Africa) Countries. Energy, 65, 134–144.
  16. Bilgili, F., I. Ozturk (2015), “Biomass Energy and Economic Growth Nexus in G7 Countries: Evidence From Dynamic Panel Data”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 49, 132-138.
  17. Bland, J.M., D.G. Altman (1996), Transforming data. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 312(7033), 770. https://doi.org/10.1136/BMJ.312.7033.770
  18. Borucke, M., D. Moore, G. Cranston, K. Gracey, K. Iha1, J. Larson, E. Lazarus, J. C. Morales, M. Wackernagel, A. Galli. (2011), ”Accounting for