KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Çankırı Karatekin Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 14 Sayı: 2

Makroekonomik Politikaların Çevresel Bozulmalara Etkisi: Panel Regresyon Analizi

Ayşe Arı(MERSIN UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-8485-5932
Sayfa
467–492
Yayın Tarihi
2024-06-30
🏛️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)

Sonuç olarak, dış borçların daha çok yenilenebilir enerji kaynaklarına yapılan yatırımlar için kullanıldığı söylenebilir.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Bu çalışmanın amacı makroekonomik politikaların (dış borç, para politikası ve maliye politikası) çevre üzerindeki etkisini üst-orta gelir grubu ülkeler için araştırmaktır.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Çalışmada 1995-2014 dönemi panel sabit ve rassal etki yöntemleriyle analiz edilmiştir.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Sonuç olarak, dış borçların daha çok yenilenebilir enerji kaynaklarına yapılan yatırımlar için kullanıldığı söylenebilir.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:2014 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:dış borç · para politikası · maliye politikası

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı makroekonomik politikaların (dış borç, para politikası ve maliye politikası) çevre üzerindeki etkisini üst-orta gelir grubu ülkeler için araştırmaktır. Çalışmada 1995-2014 dönemi panel sabit ve rassal etki yöntemleriyle analiz edilmiştir. Analiz sonucunda dış borçların CO2 emisyonunu negatif etkilerken kamu harcaması ve para arzının pozitif etkilediği belirlenmiştir. Çalışmada Dumitrescu ve Hurlin (2012) nedensellik testine de başvurulmuş ve dış borç ile CO2 emisyonu arasında çift yönlü nedensellik olduğu gözlenmiştir. Sonuç olarak, dış borçların daha çok yenilenebilir enerji kaynaklarına yapılan yatırımlar için kullanıldığı söylenebilir. Gelişmekte olan ülkeler ekonomik büyümeyi hızlandırmak amacıyla genişletici para ve maliye politikası uyguladığında bunun çevre kalitesine olumsuz yansıması beklenebilecekti

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Arı, A. (2024). Makroekonomik Politikaların Çevresel Bozulmalara Etkisi: Panel Regresyon Analizi. Çankırı Karatekin Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 14 Sayı: 2, 467–492. https://doi.org/10.18074/ckuiibfd.1375059

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (59)

  1. Akam, D., Owolabi, O. ve Nathaniel, S.P. (2021).Linking external debt and renewable energy to environmental sustainability in heavily indebted poor countries: new insights from advanced panel estimators. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 65300–65312.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-15191-9
  2. Aysu, A., Ilgun, M.F. ve Çobanoğulları, G. (2020). Hizmet türleri itibarıyla kamu harcamalarının hava kalitesi üzerindeki etkisi: AB ülkelerine yönelik panel veri analizi. Maliye Dergisi, Temmuz-Aralık 179, 118-139.
  3. Anwar, A., Chaudhary, A.R. ve Malik, S. (2021). Modeling the macroeconomic determinants of environmental degradation in E-7 countries: The role of technological innovation and institutional quality. Journal of Public Affairs, e2834, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2834.
  4. Azam, M., Liu, L. ve Ahmad, N. (2021). Impact of institutional quality on environment and energy consumption: Evidence from developing world. Environment. Development and Sustainability, 23(2), 1646–1667. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00644-x.
  5. Bekun, F. V., Alola, A. A. ve Sarkodie, S. A. (2019). Toward a sustainableenvironment: Nexus between CO2emissions, resource rent, renew-able and nonrenewable energy in 16-EU countries. Science of the Total Environment, 657,1023-1029. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.104.
  6. Beşe, E., Friday, H.S. ve Ozden, C. (2021a). The effect of external debt on emissions: Evidence from China. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 11(1), 440-447.https://doi.org/10.32479/ijeep.10605
  7. Bese, E., Friday, H.S. ve Ozden, C. (2021b). Is India Financing Its Emissions Through External Debt?. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 11(6), 170-179. https://doi.org/10.32479/ijeep.11533
  8. Beşe, E. ve Friday, H.S. (2022a). The Relationship between External Debt and Emissions and Ecological Footprint Through Economic Growth: Turkey. Cogent Economics & Finance, 10(1), 2063525, https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2022.2063525
  9. Beşe, E. ve Friday, H.S.(2022b). The Effect of External Debt on Emissions from Coal Consumption: Evidence from Turkey. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 12(5), 515-518. https://doi.org/10.32479/ijeep.13359
  10. Bilgili, F., Kuşkaya, S., Khan, M., Awan, A. ve Türker, O. (2021). The roles of economic growth and health expenditure on CO 2 emissions in selected Asian countries: A quantile regression model approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 44949–44972. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-13639-6.
  11. Bletsas, K. Oikonomou, G., Panagiotidis, M. ve Spyromitros, E.(2022). Carbon Dioxide and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The Role of Monetary Policy, Fiscal Policy, and Institutional Quality. Energies, 15(4733), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15134733.
  12. Breusch, T. S. ve Pagan, A. R. (1980). The Lagrange Multiplier Test and its Applications to Model Specification in Econometrics. The Review of Economic Studies, 47(1), 239. https://doi. org/10.2307/2297111
  13. Busu, M. ve Nedelcu, A.C. (2021).Analyzing the Renewable Energy and CO2 Emission Levels Nexus at an EU Level: A Panel Data Regression Approach. Processes MDPI, 9(130). https://doi.org/10.3390/pr9010130
  14. Campiglio, E. (2016). Beyond carbon pricing: The role of banking and monetary policy in financing the transition to a low-carbon economy. Ecological Economics, 121,220–230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.03.020.
  15. Chan, Y.T. (2020). Are macroeconomic policies better in curbing air pollution than environmental policies? A DSGE approach with carbon-dependent fiscal and monetary policies. Energy Policy, 141, 111454–111468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111454.
  16. Chishti, M.Z., Ahmad, M., Rehman, A. ve Khan, M.K. (2021). Mitigations pathways towards sustainable development: Assessing the influence of fiscal and monetary policies on carbon emissions in BRICS economies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 292(126035). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126035.
  17. Danish, K. ve Ulucak, R. (2020). The pathway toward pollution mitigation: Does institutional quality make a difference?. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(8), 3571–3583. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2597.
  18. Destek, M.A., Balli, E. ve Manga, M. (2016). The relationship between CO2 emission, energy consumption, urbanization and trade openness for selected CEECs. Research in World Economy, Sciedu Press, 7(1), 52–58. 10.5430/rwe.v7n1p52.
  19. Dong, F., Yu, B., Hadachin, T., Dai, Y., Wang, Y., Zhang, S. ve Long, R. (2018). Drivers of carbon emission intensity change in China. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 129, 187–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.10.035.
  20. Dumitrescu, E. I. ve Hurlin, C. (2012). Testing for Granger Noncausality in Heterogeneous Panels. Economic Modelling, 29(4), 1450-1460.
  21. Glasure, Y.U. (2002). Energy and national income in Korea: further evidence on the role of omitted variables. Energy Economics, 24, 355-365.
  22. Halkos, G. E. ve Paizanos, E.A. (2013). The effect of government expenditure on the environment: An empirical investigation. Ecological Economics, 91, 48–56. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.04.002.
  23. Halkos, G. E. ve Paizanos. E.A. (2017). The channels of the effect of government expenditure on the environment: Evidence using dynamic panel data. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 60(1), 135–157.10.1080/09640568.2016.1145107.
  24. Hua, Y., Rui, X. ve Yaqin, S. (2018). Fiscal spending and air pollution in Chinese cities: Identifying composition and technique effects. China Economic Review, 47, 156-169. 10.1016/j.chieco.2017.09.007.
  25. Hussain, A. ve Dey, S. (2021). Revisiting environmental Kuznets curve with HDI: new evidence from cross-country panel data. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 10(3), 324-342. https://doi.org/10.1080/21606544.2021.1880486
  26. Ighodaro, C. A. U. (2010). Co‐integration and causality relationship between energy consumption and economic growth: Further empirical evidence for Nigeria. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 11(1), 97-111.10.3846/jbem.2010.05.
  27. Isiksal, A.Z., Samour, A. ve Resatoglu, N.G. (2019). Testing the impact of real interest rate, income, and energy consumption on Turkey’s CO2 emissions. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26, 20219–20231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-04987-5.
  28. Islam, A. M. ve López, R. E. (2015). Government spending and air pollution in the US. International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, 8(2), 139-189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/101.00000068.
  29. Jabari, M. S., Aga, M. ve Samour, A. (2022). Financial sector development, external debt,and Turkey’s renewable energy consumption. PLoS ONE, 17(5), e0265684, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265684
  30. Katircioglu, S. ve Katircioglu, S. (2018a). Testing the role of fiscal policy in the environmental degradation: The case of Turkey. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(6), 5616–5630. 10.1007/s11356-017-0906-1.
  31. Katircioglu, S. ve Celebi, A. (2018). Testing the role of external debt in environmental degradation: empirical evidence from Turkey. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(9), 8843–8852. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-1194-0
  32. Khan, M. K., Teng, J.Z. ve Khan, M. I. (2019). Cointegration between macroeconomic factors and the exchange rate USD/CNY. Financial Innovation, 5(5), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-018-0117-x.
  33. Khanna, N., Fridley, D., Zhou, N., Karali, N., Zhang, J. ve Feng, W. (2019). Energy and CO2 implications of decarbonization strategies for China beyond efficiency: modeling 2050 maximum renewable resources and accelerated electrification impacts. Applied Energy, 242, 12–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.03.116.
  34. Le, H. P. ve Ozturk, İ. (2020). The impacts of globalization, financial development, government expenditures, and institutional quality on CO2 emissions in the presence of Environmental Kuznets Curve. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27, 22680–22697. 10.1007/s11356-020-08812-2.
  35. Lopez, R., Galinato, G.I. ve Islam, F. (2011). Fiscal spending and the environment: theory and empirics. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 62, 180-198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2011.03.001
  36. Luzzati, T. ve Orsini, M. (2009). Natural environment and economic growth:looking for the energy-EKC. Energy, 34(3), 291–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2008.07.006.
  37. Mohammed Saud, M. A., Guo, P., Haq, I. U., Pan, G. ve Khan, A. (2019). Do government expenditure and financial development impede environmental degradation in Venezuela?. PLoS ONE, 14(1), e0210255.10.1371/journal.pone.0210255.
  38. Moshiri, S. ve Daneshmand. A. (2020). How effective is government spending on environmental protection in a developing country?. Journal of Economic Studies, 47(4), 789–803.10.1108/JES-12-2018-0458.
  39. Mughal, N., Kashif, M., Arif, A., Guerrero, J. W. G., Nabua, W. C. ve Niedbala, G. (2021). Dynamic effects of fiscal and monetary policy instruments on environmental pollution in ASEAN. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 65116–65126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-15114-8.
  40. Nathaniel, S., Barua, S., Hussain, H. ve Adeleye, N. (2021). The determinants and interrelationship of carbon emissions and economic growth in African economies: fresh insights from static and dynamic models. Journal of Public Affairs, 21(1), e2141. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2141
  41. Noureen, S., Iqbal, J. ve Chishti, M.Z. (2022). Exploring the dynamic effects of shocks in monetary and fiscal policies on the environment ofdeveloping economies: Evidence from the CS-ARDL approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29, 45665–45682. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-19095-0.
  42. Okoro, E.E., Adeleye, B.N., Okoye, L.U. ve Maxwell, O. (2021). Gas flaring, ineffective utilization of energy resource and associated economic impact in Nigeria: Evidence from ARDL and Bayer-Hanck cointegration techniques. Energy Policy, 153(112260), 1-8, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112260.
  43. Parsa, H. ve Sajjadi, S. Z. (2017). Exploring the trade openness, energy consumption and economic growth relationship in Iran by Bayer and Hanck combined cointegration and causality analysis. Iranian Economic Review, 21(4), 829-845. 10.22059/ier.2017.64083.
  44. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General Diagnostic Tests for Cross Section Dependence in Panels. University of Cambridge Working Paper, 0435.
  45. Pesaran, M. H., Ullah, A. ve Yamagata, T. (2008). A bias-adjusted LM test of error cross-section independence. The Econometrics Journal, 11(1), 105–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1368-423X.2007.00227.x
  46. Pradeep, S. (2022). Role of monetary policy on CO2 emissions in India. SN Business and Economics, 2(3), 1-33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43546-021-00175-1.
  47. Qingquan, J., Khattak, S. I., Ahmad, M. ve Ping, L.(2020). A new approach to environmental sustainability: Assessing the impact of monetary policy on CO2 emissions in Asian economies. Sustainable Development, 28, 1331–1346. 10.1002/sd.2087.
  48. Romero-Ávila, D. (2008). A confirmatory analysis of the unit root hypothesis for OECD consumption-income ratios. Applied Economics, 40(17), 2271-2278. 10.1080/00036840600949447
  49. Sadiq, M., Shinwari, R., Usman, M., Ozturk, I. ve Maghyereh, A.I. (2022). Linking nuclear energy, human development and carbon emission in BRICS region: Do external debt and financial globalization protect the environment?. Nuclear Engineering and Technology, 54(9), 3299-3309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2022.03.024
  50. Samah, I. H., Rashid, I.M.A., Husain, W.A.F., lskandar, S., Abdullah, M. F.S. ve Amlus, M. H. (2021). Government expenditure, manufacturing growth and CO2 emission: A causality analysis in Malaysia. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 11(1), 373-377. https://doi.org/10.32479/ijeep.9766
  51. Shahzad, S.J.H., Kumar, R.R., Zakaria, M. ve Hurr, M. (2017). Carbon emission, energy consumption, trade openness and financial development in Pakistan: a revisit. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 70, 185–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.042
  52. Smith, L. V., Leybourne, S., Kim, T.-H. ve Newbold, P. (2004). More powerful panel data unit root tests with an application to mean reversion in real exchange rates. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 19(2), 147–170. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.723
  53. Tamazian, A., Chousa, J.P. ve Vadlamannati, K.C. (2009). Does higher economic and financial development lead to environmental degradation: Evidence from BRIC countries. Energy Policy, 37, 246–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.08.025
  54. Ullah, S., Ozturk, I. ve Sohail, S. (2021). The asymmetric effects of fiscal and monetary policy instruments on Pakistan’s environmental pollution. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 7450–7461. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11093-4
  55. Wen, J., Mughal, N., Zhao, J., Shabbir, M. S., Niedbała, G., Jain, V. ve Anwar, A. (2021). Does globalization matter for environmental degradation? Nexus among energy consumption, economic growth, and carbon dioxide emission. Energy Policy, 153(112230). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112230
  56. Wójtowicz, K.A., Szołno-Koguc, J.M. ve Braun, J. (2022). The role of public spending in CO2 emissions reduction in Polish regions: An LMDI decomposition approach. Energies,15(103), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15010103
  57. Yilanci, V. ve Pata, U. K. (2022). On the interaction between fiscal policy and CO2 emissions in G7 countries: 1875–2016. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 11(2), 196-217. 10.1080/21606544.2021.1950575
  58. Yuelan P, Akbar, M.W., Hafeez, M., Ahmad, M., Zia, Z. ve Ullah, S. (2019). The nexus of fscal policy instruments and environmental degradation in China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(28), 28919–28932.10.1007/s11356-019-06071-4
  59. Zhang, S,, Liu, X. ve Bae, J. (2017). Does trade openness affect CO2 emissions: evidence from ten newly industrialized countries?. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24, 17616–17625. 17616–17625. 10.1007/s11356-017-9392-8