KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Sosyoekonomi / 2026 / Cilt: 33 Sayı: 64

Nükleer Enerji Kullanımı ve Askeri Harcamaların Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisinin Şekline Etkisi: BRICS Ülkeleri Üzerine Bir Araştırma

The Effect of Nuclear Energy Use and Military Expenditures on The Formation of The Environmental Kuznets Curve: A Study for BRICS Countries

Mustafa Göktuğ Kaya(Hazine ve Maliye Bakanlığı)0000-0003-4124-4733
Mehmet Özcan(KARAMANOĞLU MEHMETBEY ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-9082-0894
Bilge Afşar(KTO KARATAY UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-2891-7617
Yiğit Yıldız(Hazine ve Maliye Bakanlığı)0000-0001-7797-8240
Sayfa
225–260
Yayın Tarihi
2025-04-26
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Bulgulara göre, bu ülkelerdeki Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi “U” şeklindedir.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Çevresel Kuznets Modeli, kişi başına düşen gelir düzeyi ile çevre kalitesi arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemektedir.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Bu doğrultuda söz konusu ülkelerin 1992-2020 dönemine ait verileri ekonometrik analize tabi tutulmuştur.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Bulgulara göre, bu ülkelerdeki Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi “U” şeklindedir.
🔬Tür:Literatür & Derleme Çalışması
📍Kapsam:2020 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi · BRICS · Askeri Harcamalar

Özet

Çevresel Kuznets Modeli, kişi başına düşen gelir düzeyi ile çevre kalitesi arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemektedir. Bu çalışma, nükleer enerji üretebilen Brezilya, Çin, Hindistan, Rusya ve Güney Afrika’nın askeri harcamalarını ve doğrudan yabancı yatırımlarını dikkate alan güncel Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi modelini tahmin etmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Bu doğrultuda söz konusu ülkelerin 1992-2020 dönemine ait verileri ekonometrik analize tabi tutulmuştur. Ekonometrik modellemede kişi başına karbon emisyonu, kişi başına GSYİH ve nükleer enerjinin toplam enerji tüketimindeki payı olmak üzere üç kontrol değişkeni kullanılmıştır. Bulgulara göre, bu ülkelerdeki Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi “U” şeklindedir. Çalışma ayrıca nükleer enerji üreten ülkelerin askeri harcamalarını ve doğrudan yabancı yatırımlarını dikkate alan Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi modelini tahmin ederek literatürdeki boşluğu doldurmayı da amaçlamaktadır.

Abstract

The Environmental Kuznets Model examines the relationship between per capita income level and environmental quality. This study aims to estimate the current Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) model, which considers military expenditures and foreign direct investments in Brazil, China, India, Russia, and South Africa, with a focus on countries that produce nuclear energy. In this regard, the data for these countries from 1992 to 2020 were subjected to econometric analysis. Three control variables -carbon emissions per capita, GDP per capita, and the share of nuclear energy in total energy consumption -were used in the econometric model. According to the findings, the EKC in these countries is U-shaped. The study also aims to fill the gap in the literature by estimating the EKC model that considers the military expenditures and foreign direct investments of countries producing nuclear energy.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Kaya, M. G., Özcan, M., Afşar, B., Yıldız, Y. (2025). Nükleer Enerji Kullanımı ve Askeri Harcamaların Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisinin Şekline Etkisi: BRICS Ülkeleri Üzerine Bir Araştırma. Sosyoekonomi, Cilt: 33 Sayı: 64, 225–260. https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.2025.02.10

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (72)

  1. Abdulsalam, A. et al. (2021), “Exploration of the Impact of China’s Outward Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) on Economic Growth in Asia and North Africa along the Belt and Road (B&R) Initiative”, Sustainability, 13(4), 1623.
  2. Ahmed, Z. et al. (2022), “The Trade-off between Energy Consumption, Economic Growth, Militarization, and CO2 Emissions: Does the Treadmill of Destruction Exist in the Modern World?”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(12), 18063-18076.
  3. Akyıldız, B. (2008), “Çevresel Etkinlik Analizi: Kuznets Eğrisi Yaklaşımı”, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
  4. Allard, A. et al. (2018), “The N-shaped environmental Kuznets curve: an empirical evaluation using a panel quantile regression approach”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25, 5848-5861.
  5. Ang, J.B. (2009), “CO2 emissions, research and technology transfer in China”, Ecological Economics, 68(10), 2658-2665.
  6. Apergis, N. (2016), “Environmental Kuznets curves: New evidence on both panel and country-level CO2 emissions”, Energy Economics, 54, 263-271.
  7. Baba, A.E. (2023), “Revisiting the energy consumption, economic growth and the environmental kuznets curve in developing countries”, Экономика региона, 19(1), 75-84.
  8. Balsalobre-Lorente, D. et al. (2017), “Energy Innovation in the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC): A Theoretical Approach”, in: Carbon Footprint and The Industrial Life Cycle, (243-268), Springer International Publishing.
  9. Başar, S. & M.S. Temurlenk (2007), “Çevreye uyarlanmış Kuznets Eğrisi: Türkiye üzerine bir uygulama”, Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 21(1), 1-12.
  10. Bo, S. (2011), “A Literature Survey on Environmental Kuznets Curve”, Energy Procedia, 5, 1322-1325.
  11. Borghesi, S. (1999), The Environmental Kuznets Curve: A Survey of The Literature, European University Institute.
  12. Bozkaya, Ş. et al. (2022), “Does environmentally friendly energy consumption spur economic progress: Empirical evidence from the Nordic countries?”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(54), 82600-82610.
  13. Cole, M.A. & R.J. Elliott (2003), “Determining the trade-environment composition effect: the role of capital, labor and environmental regulations”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 46(3), 363-383.
  14. Cole, M.A. (2004), “Trade, the pollution haven hypothesis and the environmental Kuznets curve: Examining the linkages”, Ecological Economics, 48(1), 71-81.
  15. Cutcu, I. et al. (2024), “What is the long-run relationship between military expenditures, foreign trade and ecological footprint? Evidence from method of Maki cointegration test”, Environment, Development and Sustainability, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-04647-w.
  16. Dasgupta, S. et al. (2002), “Confronting the environmental Kuznets curve”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16(1), 147-168.
  17. De Bruyn, S.M. et al. (1998), “Economic growth and emissions: reconsidering the empirical basis of environmental Kuznets curves”, Ecological Economics, 25(2), 161-175.
  18. Dietz, T. & E.A. Rosa (1994), “Rethinking the Environmental Impacts of Population”, Human Ecology Review, 1, 277-300.
  19. Dinda, S. (2004), “Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: a survey”, Ecological Economics, 49(4), 431-455.
  20. Dumitrescu, E.I. & C. Hurlin (2012), “Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels”, Economic Modelling, 29(4), 1450-1460.
  21. Duran, M.S. et al. (2022), “Nuclear energy consumption and energy-driven growth nexus: a system GMM analysis of 27 nuclear utilizing countries across the globe”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(46), 70564-70572.
  22. Ehrlich, P.R. & J.P. Holdren (1971), “Impact of Population Growth”, Science, 171(3977), 1212-1217.
  23. Elgin, C. et al. (2022), “Military Spending and Sustainable Development”, Review of Development Economics, 26(3), 1466-1490.
  24. Elveren, A.Y. (2021), Askeri Harcamalar ve Ekonomi, Eleştirel Bir Yaklaşım, İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
  25. Erataş, F. & D. Uysal (2014), “Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi Yaklaşımının ‘BRICST’ Ülkeleri Kapsamında Değerlendirilmesi”, İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası, 64(1), 1-25.
  26. Erdogan, S. et al. (2022), “Does Military Expenditure Impact Environmental Sustainability in Developed Mediterranean Countries?”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(21), 31612-31630.
  27. Eskeland, G.S. & A.E. Harrison (2003), “Moving to greener pastures? Multinationals and the pollution haven hypothesis”, Journal of Development Economics, 70(1), 1-23.
  28. Eylasov, N. et al. (2024), “BRICS+T Ülkelerinde Finansal Gelişme ve Askeri Harcamaların GSYİH Üzerindeki Etkisi: Fourier Bootstrap ARDL Yaklaşımı”, Yönetim ve Ekonomi Dergisi, 31(3), 543-572.
  29. Golpîra, H. et al. (2023), “Examining the energy-environmental Kuznets curve in OECD countries considering their population”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(41), 94515-94536.
  30. Grossman, G.M. & A.B. Krueger (1991), “Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement”, NBER Working Paper Series, No: 3914.
  31. Hacıimamoğlu, T. (2022), “BRICS-T ülkelerinde ekonomik büyüme, doğrudan yabancı yatırım ve çevresel kirlilik i̇lişkisi: çevresel kuznets eğrisi ve kirlilik sığınağı hipotezlerinin ampirik analizi”, Fiscaoeconomia, 6(3), 1457-1478.
  32. Halkos, G. (2011), “Environment and economic development: determinants of an EKC hypothesis”, Munich Personal RePEc Archive, MPRA Paper No. 3326.
  33. Harris, J.M. (2013), “Green Keynesianism: Beyond Standard Growth Paradigms”, Global Development and Environment Institute Working Paper, No. 13-02.
  34. Holdren, J. (2021), “Brief History of IPAT”, The Journal of Population and Sustainability, 2(2), 66-74.
  35. Holdren, J.P. & P.R. Ehrlich (1972), “One-dimensional ecology revisited a rejoinder”, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 28(6), 42-45.
  36. Huang, Y. et al. (2019), “The heterogeneous effects of FDI and foreign trade on CO2 emissions: evidence from China”, Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2019, 9612492.
  37. Jaeger, W.K. et al. (2023), “The environmental Kuznets curve reconsidered”, Energy Economics, 120, 106561.
  38. Kaika, D. & E. Zervas (2013), “The Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) theory-Part A: Concept, causes and the CO2 emissions case”, Energy Policy, 62(2), 1392-1402.
  39. Karagöz-Domaç, G. (2022), “Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisinin ARDL ve Fourier ARDL Yaklaşımıyla İncelenmesi: Türkiye Örneği”, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Kütahya Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Lisansüstü Eğitim Enstitüsü Ekonometri Anabilim Dalı.
  40. Kornecki, K. & C.F. Wise (2024), The role of advanced nuclear reactors and fuel cycles in a future energy system”, PNAS Nexus, 3(2), pgae030.
  41. Kuznets, S. (1955), “Economic Growth and Income Inequality”, The Economic Review, 45(1), 1-28.
  42. Leal, P.H. & A.C. Marques (2022), “The evolution of the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis assessment: A literature review under a critical analysis perspective”, Heliyon, 8(11), e11521.
  43. Neila, B.A. (2016), “The Relationship between Military Expenditure, Military Personnel, Economic Growth, and the Environment”, International Journal of Economics and Management Engineering, 10(4), 1059-1064.
  44. Noubissi-Domguia, E. & B. Poumie (2019), “Economic Growth, Military Spending and Environmental Degradation in Africa”, MPRA Paper No. 97455.
  45. O’Neill, J. (2001), “Building Better Global Economic BRICs”, Goldman Sachs Global Economics Paper No: 66.
  46. Panayotou, T. (1993), “Empirical Tests and Policy Analysis of Environmental, World Employment Programme Research”, Working Paper WEP 2-22/WP. 238, ILO Ceneva.
  47. Panayotou, T. et al. (2000), “Is the Environmental Kuznets Curve Driven by Structural Change? What Extended Time Series May Imply for Developing Countries”, Discussion Paper, Harvard Institute for International Development, No. 80.
  48. Pata, U.K. (2019), “Enerji Tüketimi Çeşitleri ile Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisinin Ampirik Olarak Analizi: Türkiye Örneği”, Doktora Tezi, Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi, Trabzon.
  49. Pearce, J.M. (2012), “Limitations of Nuclear Power as a Sustainable Energy Source”, Sustainability, 4(6), 1173-1187.
  50. Pesaran, M.H. (2004), “General Diagnostic Tests for Cross Section Dependence in Panels”, CESifo Working Paper Series No. 1229; IZA Discussion Paper No. 1240.
  51. Pesaran, M.H. (2006), “Estimation and inference in large heterogeneous panels with a multifactor error structure”, Econometrica, 74(4), 967-1012.
  52. Pesaran, M.H. (2007), “A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross‐section dependence”, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), 265-312.
  53. Pirgaip, B. et al. (2023), “The role of government spending within the Environmental Kuznets Curve framework: evidence from G7 Countries”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(34), 81513-81530.
  54. Raihan, A. (2023), “Exploring environmental kuznets curve and pollution haven hypothesis in Bangladesh: the impact of foreign direct investment”, Journal of Environmental Science and Economics, 2(1), 25-36.
  55. Rasli, A.M. et al. (2018), “New toxics, race to the bottom and revised Environmental Kuznets Curve: The case of local and global pollutants”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 81, 3120-3130.
  56. Sattar, A. et al. (2022). “Environmental effects of China’s overseas direct investment in South Asia”, Sage Open, 12(1), 215824402210783.
  57. Stern, D.I. (1998), “Progress on the Environmental Kuznets Curve?”, Environment and Development Economics, 3(2), 173-196.
  58. Terrell, T.D. (2021), “Carbon flux and N-and M-shaped environmental Kuznets curves: evidence from international land use change”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 10(2), 155-174.
  59. Thomas, U. et al. (2023), “The nexus between military spending and income inequality in BRICS Nations”, The Journal of Developing Areas, 57(4), 351-366.
  60. Torras, M. & J.K. Boyce (1998), “Income, inequality, and pollution: a reassessment of the environmental Kuznets curve”, Ecological Economics, 25(2), 147-160.
  61. United States Department of Defense (2023), “Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China”, A Report to Congress.
  62. United States Energy Information Administration (N/A), Open Data,, 11.05.2024.
  63. Üzar, U. (2019), “Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırım, Büyüme ve Çevresel Kalite İlişkisi: Türkiye ‘Dibe Yarışan’ Bir Ülke mi?”, Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(2), 439-451.
  64. Wang, S. et al. (2024), “Economic growth, nuclear energy, renewable energy, and environmental quality: Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve and load capacity curve hypothesis”, Gondwana Research, 129, 490-504.
  65. Wheeler, D. (2001), “Racing to the bottom? Foreign investment and air pollution in developing countries”, The Journal of Environment & Development, 10(3), 225-245.
  66. Wu, Q. & R. Wang (2023), “Do environmental regulation and foreign direct investment drive regional air pollution in China?”, Sustainability, 15(2), 1567.
  67. Zarsky, L. (1999), “Havens, halos and spaghetti: Untangling the evidence about foreign direct investment and the environment”, in: Foreign direct investment and the environment (47-74), OECD Publishing.
  68. Zeng, S.X. & I.L. Eastin (2012), “A study of the impacts of the ‘green credit policy’ on the timber trade and industry in China”, Forest Policy and Economics, 23, 30-36.
  69. Zhang, Y. & Y. Guo (2017), “Study on the Ecological Footprint of Real Estate Development Companies and Its Influencing Factors: Based on China’s Provincial Datas”, Proceedings of the 2017 6th International Conference on Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development (ICEESD 2017).
  70. Jóźwik, B. et al. (2023), “Nuclear energy and financial development for a clean environment: Examining the N-shaped environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in top nuclear energy-consuming countries”, Energies, 16(22), 7494.
  71. Pesaran, M.H. (2004), “General Diagnostic Tests for Cross Section Dependence in Panels”, CESifo Working Paper Series No. 1229; IZA Discussion Paper No. 1240.
  72. United States Energy Information Administration (N/A), Open Data,, 11.05.2024.