KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / 19 Mayıs Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 7 Sayı: 3

Ekonomide Yapısal Dönüşümün Çevresel Etkileri; G7 Ülkeleri Üzerine Bir Panel Veri Analizi

Envıronmental Impacts Of Structural Transformatıon In The Economy; A Panel Data Analysıs On G7 Countrıes

Huriye Nur Keskin(Burdur Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi)0009-0004-7065-1711
İhsan Oluç(BURDUR MEHMET AKİF ERSOY ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-5167-1862
Sayfa
18–36
Yayın Tarihi
2026-09-30
🏛️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)

Elde edilen bulgular, açıklayıcı değişkenlerin çevresel performans göstergeleri üzerinde farklı düzeylerde etkiler oluşturduğunu göstermektedir.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Bu çalışma, çevresel tahribata katkıda bulunan ve ekolojik borç düzeyi yüksek olan G7 ülkelerinde yapısal dönüşüm politikalarının çevresel kalite üzerindeki etkisini incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Çalışmada, 2000–2022 dönemi için G7 ülkelerine ait ekolojik ayak izi, karbon ayak izi, karbon emisyonları, enerji tüketimi ve ekonomik büyüme değişkenleri analiz edilmiştir.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Elde edilen bulgular, açıklayıcı değişkenlerin çevresel performans göstergeleri üzerinde farklı düzeylerde etkiler oluşturduğunu göstermektedir.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:2000–2022 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Yapısal Dönüşüm · Ekolojik Ayak İzi · G7 Ülkeleri

Özet

Bu çalışma, çevresel tahribata katkıda bulunan ve ekolojik borç düzeyi yüksek olan G7 ülkelerinde yapısal dönüşüm politikalarının çevresel kalite üzerindeki etkisini incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Çalışmada, 2000–2022 dönemi için G7 ülkelerine ait ekolojik ayak izi, karbon ayak izi, karbon emisyonları, enerji tüketimi ve ekonomik büyüme değişkenleri analiz edilmiştir. Değişkenler arasındaki uzun dönemli ilişkilerin belirlenmesinde Momentler Kantil Regresyonu (MMQR) yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Elde edilen bulgular, açıklayıcı değişkenlerin çevresel performans göstergeleri üzerinde farklı düzeylerde etkiler oluşturduğunu göstermektedir. Analiz sonuçlarına göre, çevresel kaliteyi iyileştiren tek unsurun yapısal dönüşüm olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Bu sonuç, sürdürülebilir çevresel koşulların sağlanabilmesi için özellikle G7 ülkelerinde yapısal dönüşüm süreçlerinin hızlandırılması gerektiğini ortaya koymaktadır.

Abstract

This study aims to examine the role of structural transformation policies in mitigating environmental pressure in G7 countries characterized by high levels of ecological debt and significant contributions to environmental degradation. Within this framework, ecological footprint, carbon footprint, carbon emissions, energy consumption, and economic growth variables for the G7 countries over the period 2000–2022 were analyzed. The Method of Moments Quantile Regression (MMQR) approach was employed to investigate the long-run relationships among the variables. The empirical findings indicate that the explanatory variables exert heterogeneous effects across different levels of environmental performance indicators. The results further reveal that structural transformation is the only factor contributing positively to environmental quality. Accordingly, the study suggests that accelerating structural transformation processes is essential for achieving sustainable environmental conditions, particularly in G7 countries and economies with similar economic structures.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Keskin, H. N., Oluç, İ. (2026). Ekonomide Yapısal Dönüşümün Çevresel Etkileri; G7 Ülkeleri Üzerine Bir Panel Veri Analizi. 19 Mayıs Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 3, 18–36. https://doi.org/10.52835/19maysbd.1961391

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (40)

  1. Agozie, D. Q., Akwasi Gyamfi, B., Victor Bekun, F., Ozturk, I., & Taha, A. (2022). Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis from lens of economic complexity index for BRICS: Evidence from second generation panel analysis. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 53, Article 102597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2022.102597
  2. Ahmed, Z., Can, M., Sinha, A., Ahmad, M., Alvarado, R., & Rjoub, H. (2022). Investigating the role of economic complexity in sustainable development and environmental sustainability. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 29(8), 771–783. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2022.2097330
  3. Ahmed, Z., Le, H. P., & Shahzad, S. J. H. (2022). Toward environmental sustainability: How do urbanization, economic growth, and industrialization affect biocapacity in Brazil? Environment, Development and Sustainability, 24(10), 11676–11696. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01915-x
  4. Alam, R., & Adil, M. H. (2019). Validating the environmental Kuznets curve in India: ARDL bounds testing framework. OPEC Energy Review, 43(3), 277–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/opec.12156
  5. Ali, S., Can, M., Shah, M. I., Jiang, J., Ahmed, Z., & Murshed, M. (2022). Exploring the linkage between export diversification and ecological footprint: Evidence from advanced time series estimation techniques. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(25), 38395–38409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-18622-3
  6. Ali, W., Rahman, I. U., Zahid, M., Khan, M. A., & Kumail, T. (2020). Do technology and structural changes favour environment in Malaysia: An ARDL-based evidence for environmental Kuznets curve. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 22(8), 7927–7950. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-019-00554-7
  7. Ali, Y., Ciaschini, M., Pretaroli, R., & Socci, C. (2015). Measuring the economic landscape of Italy: Target efficiency and control effectiveness. Economia e Politica Industriale, 42(3), 297–321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40812-015-0014-6
  8. Alola, A. A., Adebayo, T. S., & Onifade, S. T. (2022). Examining the dynamics of ecological footprint in China with spectral Granger causality and quantile-on-quantile approaches. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 29(3), 263–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2021.1990158
  9. Apergis, N., Can, M., Gozgor, G., & Lau, C. K. M. (2018). Effects of export concentration on CO2 emissions in developed countries: An empirical analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(14), 14106–14116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-1634-x
  10. Bilgen, S. (2014). Structure and environmental impact of global energy consumption. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 38, 890–902. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.004
  11. Cansino, J. M., Román, R., & Ordóñez, M. (2016). Main drivers of changes in CO2 emissions in the Spanish economy: A structural decomposition analysis. Energy Policy, 89, 150–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.11.020
  12. Destek, M. A. (2021). Deindustrialization, reindustrialization and environmental degradation: Evidence from ecological footprint of Turkey. Journal of Cleaner Production, 296, Article 126612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126612
  13. Dünya Bankası. (2025). World Bank Group. https://data.worldbank.org
  14. Farley, J., & Voinov, A. (2016). Economics, socio-ecological resilience and ecosystem services. Journal of Environmental Management, 183, 389–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.07.065
  15. Global Footprint Network. (2024). Data and methodology. https://www.footprintnetwork.org/
  16. Grossman, G. M., & Krueger, A. B. (1991). Environmental impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NBER Working Paper No. 3914). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w3914
  17. Güzel, İ., & Oluç, İ. (2022). İhracat ürün çeşitlendirmesinin ekolojik ayak izi üzerindeki etkisi. Akademik Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi (AKAD), 14(26), 47–58. https://doi.org/10.20990/kilisiibfakademik.1060437
  18. International Energy Agency. (2022). World energy outlook 2022. https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2022
  19. Khan, Z., Murshed, M., Dong, K., & Yang, S. (2021). The roles of export diversification and composite country risks in carbon emissions abatement: Evidence from the signatories of the regional comprehensive economic partnership agreement. Applied Economics, 53(41), 4769–4787. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2021.1907289
  20. Kihombo, S., Ahmed, Z., Chen, S., Adebayo, T. S., & Kirikkaleli, D. (2021). Linking financial development, economic growth, and ecological footprint: What is the role of technological innovation? Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(43), 61235–61245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14993-1
  21. Kirikkaleli, D., & Adebayo, T. S. (2021). Do renewable energy consumption and financial development matter for environmental sustainability? New global evidence. Sustainable Development, 29(4), 583–594. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2159
  22. Kitzes, J., Galli, A., Bagliani, M., Barrett, J., Dige, G., Ede, S., Erb, K., Giljum, S., Haberl, H., & Hails, C. (2009). A research agenda for improving national Ecological Footprint accounts. Ecological Economics, 68(7), 1991–2007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.06.022
  23. Lewney, R. (2021). Environmental policies to save the planet. In P. Arestis & M. Sawyer (Eds.), Economic policies for a post-neoliberal world (pp. 139–170). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56735-4_5
  24. Liu, X., & Bae, J. (2018). Urbanization and industrialization impact of CO2 emissions in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 178–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.156
  25. López, R. E., Anríquez, G., & Gulati, S. (2007). Structural change and sustainable development. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 53(3), 307–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2006.10.003
  26. Musah, M., Adjei Mensah, I., Appiah, T., Nkyi, J. A., & Owusu-Akomeah, M. (2025). Limiting global warming to 1.5°C: Conditioning effects of financial flows and regulatory quality on green technological innovation-emission nexus. International Review of Economics & Finance, 104, Article 104763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2025.
  27. Oluc, I., Can, M., Eronal, Y., & Saboori, B. (2024). Assessing the environmental implications of structural change in middle-income countries: Introducing the structural change index. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 21(8), 6339–6356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-023-05408-4
  28. Oluç, İ. (2023). Ekonomik büyümede çevrenin rolü. B. F. İzci, D. Alma Savaş, & B. Göksoy Sevinçli (Ed.), Çevre ve ekonomisi: Politika, yönetim ve uygulama içinde (1. baskı, ss. 107–127). Nobel Bilimsel Eserler.
  29. Panayotou, T. (1997). Demystifying the environmental Kuznets curve: Turning a black box into a policy tool. Environment and Development Economics, 2(4), 465–484. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X97000259
  30. Saboori, B., Zaibet, L., & Boughanmi, H. (2022). Export diversification, energy consumption, economic growth and environmental degradation: Evidence from Oman. International Journal of Ambient Energy, 43(1), 8486–8504. https://doi.org/10.1080/01430750.2022.2091026
  31. Sharma, R., Sinha, A., & Kautish, P. (2021). Examining the nexus between export diversification and environmental pollution: Evidence from BRICS nations. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(43), 61732–61747. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14889-0
  32. Sørensen, B. B., Estmann, C., Sarmento, E. F., & Rand, J. (2020). Economic complexity and structural transformation: The case of Mozambique (WIDER Working Paper No. 2020/118). UNU-WIDER. https://doi.org/10.35188/UNU-WIDER/2020/898-6
  33. Su, Z.-W., Umar, M., Kirikkaleli, D., & Adebayo, T. S. (2021). Role of political risk to achieve carbon neutrality: Evidence from Brazil. Journal of Environmental Management, 298, Article 113463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113463
  34. Villanthenkodath, M. A., Ansari, M. A., Shahbaz, M., & Vo, X. V. (2022). Do tourism development and structural change promote environmental quality? Evidence from India. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 24(4), 5163–5194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01654-z
  35. Wang, C., Chen, J., & Zou, J. (2005). Decomposition of energy-related CO2 emission in China: 1957–2000. Energy, 30(1), 73–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2004.04.002
  36. Wang, Z., Rasool, Y., Zhang, B., Ahmed, Z., & Wang, B. (2020). Dynamic linkage among industrialisation, urbanisation, and CO2 emissions in APEC realms: Evidence based on DSUR estimation. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 52, 382–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2019.12.001
  37. Wing, I. S., & Eckaus, R. S. (2007). The implications of the historical decline in US energy intensity for long-run CO2 emission projections. Energy Policy, 35(11), 5267–5586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2006.01.035
  38. Wu, L., Kaneko, S., & Matsuoka, S. (2005). Driving forces behind the stagnancy of China’s energy-related CO2 emissions from 1996 to 1999: The relative importance of structural change, intensity change and scale change. Energy Policy, 33(3), 319–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2003.08.003
  39. Yanchuk, N., Barba, V., & Matsko, V. (2026). Economic and legal paradigm of the concept of sustainable development of a modern state. Baltic Journal of Economic Studies, 12(2), 397–404. https://doi.org/10.30525/2256-0742/2026-12-2-397-404
  40. Zhao, J., Sinha, A., Inuwa, N., Wang, Y., Murshed, M., & Abbasi, K. R. (2022). Does structural transformation in economy impact inequality in renewable energy productivity? Implications for sustainable development. Renewable Energy, 189, 853–864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.03.050