Research Article


DOI :10.26650/ekoist.2022.37.1118226   IUP :10.26650/ekoist.2022.37.1118226    Full Text (PDF)

The Impact of Democracy on Environmental Degradation in OECD Countries

Neslihan Ursavaş

Environmental degradation and its determinants have been extensively discussed in the literature. With the literature mostly focusing on the economic determinants of environmental degradation, such as, economic growth, openness, and globalization. However, the political determinants of environmental degradation are also significant for a sustainable environment. The theoretical approaches differ in this context, with some studies claiming that democracy reduces environmental degradation, while others argue that democracy increases it. Therefore, one can say that no consensus exists among the approaches explaining the relationship between democracy and the environment with regard to how democracy impacts the environment. One of the main goals of this study is to focus on the political components of environmental degradation, such as, democracy. This study additionally investigates the impact of democracy on environmental degradation within the scope of theoretical approaches. Within this context, the study tests the impact of democracy on greenhouse gas emissions per capita in 37 OECD countries for the period of 1995-2018. In order to do this, the study first tests cross-sectional dependence and homogeneity across the variables. The results show the presence of both cross-sectional dependence, as well as slope heterogeneity between the variables. Therefore, the common correlated effects mean group (CCEMG) estimator, is used, as it takes cross-sectional dependence and heterogeneity into consideration. According to the results, democracy is positively related to environmental degradation. In other words, an increase in the level of democracy increases greenhouse gas emissions per capita, whereas higher levels of renewable energy consumption reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

DOI :10.26650/ekoist.2022.37.1118226   IUP :10.26650/ekoist.2022.37.1118226    Full Text (PDF)

OECD Ülkelerinde Demokrasinin Çevresel Bozulma Üzerindeki Etkisi

Neslihan Ursavaş

Çevresel bozulma ve belirleyicileri literatürde kapsamlı bir şekilde tartışılmaktadır. Bununla birlikte, literatür çoğunlukla ekonomik büyüme, açıklık ve küreselleşme gibi çevresel bozulmanın ekonomik belirleyicilerine odaklanmaktadır. Ancak sürdürülebilir bir çevre için çevresel bozulmanın politik belirleyicileri de oldukça önemlidir. Bu bağlamda konuyla ilgili teorik yaklaşımlar ise birbirinden farklıdır. Bazı çalışmalar demokrasinin çevresel bozulmayı azalttığını iddia ederken; bazı çalışmalar ise demokrasinin çevresel bozulmayı artırdığını savunmaktadır. Dolayısıyla demokrasi ve çevre arasındaki ilişkiyi açıklamaya yönelik yaklaşımlar arasında demokrasinin çevreyi nasıl etkilediği konusunda bir fikir birliği olmadığı görülmektedir. Bu çalışmanın temel amaçlarından biri, çevresel bozulmanın demokrasi gibi politik bileşenlerine odaklanmaktır. Bununla birlikte çalışmada konu ile ilgili teorik argümanlar çerçevesinde demokrasinin çevresel bozulma üzerindeki etkisi incelenmektedir. Belirtilen amaçlar doğrultusunda 37 OECD ülkesinde 1995-2018 dönemi için demokrasinin kişi başı sera gazı emisyonu üzerindeki etkisi test edilmektedir. İlk olarak seriler arasında yatay kesit bağımlılığı ve eğim katsayısının homojen olup olmadığı test edilmektedir. Elde edilen bulgulara göre seriler arasında hem yatay kesit bağımlılığı olduğu hem de eğim katsayısının heterojen olduğu gözlenmektedir. Bu nedenle yatay kesit bağımlılığı ve heterojenliği dikkate alan Ortak İlişkili Etkiler Ortalama Grup (CCEMG) tahmincisi kullanılmaktadır. Elde edilen bulgulara göre demokrasi düzeyindeki artış kişi başı sera gazı emisyonunu artırırken; yenilenebilir enerji tüketimi sera gazı emisyonunu azaltmaktadır. 


EXTENDED ABSTRACT


This study investigates the relationship between environmental degradation and democracy in 37 OECD countries. The dataset covers the period of 1995-2018. The literature on environmental degradation can be classified as follows: The first group of studies investigates the relationship between environmental degradation and its economic indicators, and the second group focuses on the relationship between environmental degradation and its political indicators. While some of these studies state democracy to increase environmental degradation, other studies argue opposite, with democracy decreasing environmental pollution. 

No consensus is observed to exist regarding how democracy impacts environmental degradation. Using this motivation, this study focuses on the political determinants of environmental degradation, unlike the existing literature which has mainly focused on the economic determinants of environmental pollution. This study examines the relationship between democracy and greenhouse gas emissions per capita in 37 OECD countries over 1995-2018 the period using the common correlated effects mean group (CCEMG) estimator.

Many studies are found to have examined the determinants of environmental degradation. A significant portion of these studies has analyzed the impacts of economic factors such as economic growth, trade openness, and globalization on environmental pollution. While some of these studies (Jalil & Mahmud, 2009; Lau et al., 2014; Destek et al., 2016; Doğan & Turkekul, 2016; Shahbaz et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2017; Pata, 2019; Ling et al., 2021; used carbon emissions as a proxy for environmental degradation, a second group of studies (Ahmed et al., 2019; Apaydın et al., 2021; Apaydın, 2020) used the ecological footprint index. However, very little research is found in the literature regarding political determinants on environmental degradation, such as democracy. While some of these studies have argued democracy to positively affect environmental degradation, others have argued a negative relationship to exist between democracy and the environment. Studies such as those from Binder and Neumayer (2005), Li and Reuveny (2006), Bernauer and Kaubi (2004; 2009), Romuald (2016), and Hotunluoğlu and Yılmaz (2018) have shown democracy to reduce environmental pollution. However, a few studies such as those from Brenna (2015), and Gallagher and Thacker (2008) have argued democracy to have a positive or negligible impact on the environment.

The results from the cointegration test show a long term relationship to exist among the variables. According to the CCEMG results, democracy has a positive and statistically significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions per capita. Alongside this, the study also uses renewable energy consumption, income per capita, and urban population as control variables. The results show the impacts of income per capita and urban population to not be statistically significant, while also showing a negative and significant relationship to exist between democracy and renewable energy consumption.

This study investigates the impact of democracy on greenhouse gas emissions per capita over the period 1995-2018 for 37 OECD countries. The results show democracy to be positively related to greenhouse gas emissions per capita. An increase in democracy levels increases greenhouse gas emissions per capita. Meanwhile, democracy leads to environmental degradation. On the other hand, an increase in renewable energy consumption levels decreases greenhouse gas emissions per capita in OECD countries, as expected. An increase in the percentage that renewable energy makes up overall energy consumption increases quality of the environment. Therefore, countries with high renewable energy consumption are able to provide a sustainable solution to environmental problems. According to the other important finding from the study, an increase in democracy increases the amount of greenhouse gas emissions per capita. This result supports the approaches claimed by studies such as those from Drzek (1987) and Bernauer and Koubi (2004), which showed democracy to increase environmental degradation. Therefore, regulatory institutions are able to reduce the negative impact that democracy has on environmental quality by limiting the power lawmakers have to permit excessive resource use. An ecological constitution may also be prepared in order to ensure the sustainability of environmental policies as well as to prevent the problem of political myopia. 


PDF View

References

  • Acemoglu, D. ve Robinson, J.A. (2006). Economic origins of dictatorship and democracy. Cambridge University Press. google scholar
  • Adams, S. ve Acheampong, A.O. (2019). Reducing carbon emissions: the role of renewable energy and democracy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 240, 118-245 google scholar
  • Adams, S. ve Klobodu, E.K.M. (2017). Urbanization, democracy, bureaucratic quality, and environmental degradation. Journal ofPolicy Modeling, 39, 1035-1051 google scholar
  • Adams, S. ve Nsiah, C. (2019). Reducing carbon dioxide emissions: does renewable energy matter?. Science of The Total Environment 693:133288 google scholar
  • Adams, S., Adom, P.K. ve Klobodu, E.K.M. (2016). Urbanization, regime type and durability, and environmental degradation in Ghana. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 23(23), 23825-23839 google scholar
  • Adebayo, T. S. ve Kirikkaleli, D. (2021). Impact of renewable energy consumption, globalization, and technological innovation on environmental degradation in Japan: application of wavelet tools. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 23(11), 16057-16082. google scholar
  • Akalin, G. ve Erdogan, S. (2021). Does democracy help reduce environmental degradation?. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(6), 7226-7235. google scholar
  • Akar, H., Giray, F., ve Kar, M. (2021). fosil yakitlara verilen sübvansiyonlarin sosyal ve ekonomik etkileri: OECD ülkeleri için ampirik bir analiz. Dicle Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(22), 352-375. google scholar
  • Altintaş, H. ve Mercan, M. (2015). Ar-Ge harcamalari ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi: OECD ülkeleri üzerine yatay kesit bağimliliği altinda panel eşbütünleşme analizi. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 70(2), 345-376. google scholar
  • Apaydın, Ş. ve Taşdoğan, C. (2019). Türkiye’de iktisadi büyüme ve birincil enerji tüketiminin karbon salınımı üzerindeki etkisi: yapısal var yaklaşımı. Akademi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 6(16), 19-35 google scholar
  • Arvin, B.M. ve Lew, B. (2011). Does democracy affect environmental quality in developing countries? Applied Economics, 43(9), 1151-1160 google scholar
  • Aslan, A., Destek, M. A. ve Okumus, I. (2018). Bootstrap rolling window estimation approach to analysis of the Environment Kuznets Curve hypothesis: evidence from the USA. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(3), 2402-2408 google scholar
  • Balsalobre-Lorente, D., Shahbaz, M., Roubaud, D. ve Farhani, S. (2018). How economic growth, renewable electricity and natural resources contribute to CO2 emissions?. Energy Policy, 113, 356-367. google scholar
  • Bernauer, T. ve Koubi, V. (2004). On the political determinants of environmental quality. Paper Prepared for Presentation at The Annual Convention of the American Political Science Association in Chicago, September 2-5. google scholar
  • Bernauer, T. ve Koubi, V. (2009). Political determinants of environmental quality. Ecological Economics, 68(5), 1355-1365. google scholar
  • Binder, S. ve Neumayer, E. (2005). Environmental pressure group strength and air pollution: an empirical analysis. Ecological Economics, 55(4), 527-538. google scholar
  • Brenna, K.A. (2015). Democracy and climate change the relationship between democracy and co2-emissions. Master’s Thesis, University of Oslo. google scholar
  • 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), 239-253 google scholar
  • Bora, İ. ve Atasoy, B. (2018). Finansal gelişmenin ve enerji tüketiminin karbondioksit emisyonlari üzerindeki etkisinin çevresel Kuznetz eğrisi çerçevesinde değerlendirilmesi. Journal of Management and Economics Research, 16(1), 145-160. google scholar
  • Buitenzorgy, M. ve Mol, A.P.J. (2011). Does democracy lead to a better environment? deforestation and the democratic transition peak. Environmental and Resource Economics, 48, 59-70. google scholar
  • Charfeddine, L. ve Mrabet, Z. (2017). The impact of economic development and social-political factors on ecological footprint: a panel data analysis for 15 MENA countries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 76, 138-154 google scholar
  • Cole, M. A. ve Neumayer, E. (2004). Examining the impact of demographic factors on air pollution. Population and Environment, 26(1), 5-21. google scholar
  • Congleton, R.D. (1992). Political ınstitutions and pollution control. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 74(3), 412-421. google scholar
  • Çetin, M., Ecevit, E. ve Yucel, A.G. (2018). The Impact of economic growth, energy consumption, trade openness, and financial development on carbon emissions: empirical evidence from Turkey. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(36), 36589-36603. google scholar
  • Desai, U. (1998.) Ecological policy and politics in developing countries. New York: State University of New York Press). google scholar
  • 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, 7(1), 52-58 google scholar
  • Dogan, E. ve Turkekul, B. (2016). CO2 emissions, real output, energy consumption, trade, urbanization and financial development: testing the EKC hypothesis for the USA. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 23(2), 1203-1213. google scholar
  • Dryzek, J.S. (1987). Rational ecology: environment and political economy. Basil Blackwell, New York. google scholar
  • Erdogan, S. (2020). Analyzing the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: the role of disaggregated transport infrastructure investments. Sustainable Cities and Society, 61, 102338 google scholar
  • Farzanegan, M.R. ve Markwardt, G. (2018). Development and pollution in the Middle East and North Africa: democracy matters. Journal of Policy Modeling, 40, 350-374 google scholar
  • Farzin, H.Y. ve Bond, C.A. (2006). Democracy and environmental quality. Journal of Development Economics, 81, 213-235 google scholar
  • Fredriksson, P.G., Neumayer, E., Damania R. ve Gates, S. (2005). Environmentalism, democracy, and pollution control. Journal Of Environmental Economics And Management, 49(2), 343-365 google scholar
  • Gallagher, K.P. ve Thacker, S.C. (2008). Democracy, ıncome, and environmental quality. PERI Working Papers, 124. google scholar
  • Gani, A. ve Scrimgeour, F. (2014). Modeling governance and water pollution using the institutional ecological economic framework. Economic Modelling, 42, 363-372 google scholar
  • Hotunluoğlu, H. Ve Yılmaz, G.S. (2018). Demokrasi karbondioksit emisyonu için önemli mi? Türkiye için bir uygulama. Siyaset, Ekonomi ve Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(1), 133-141. google scholar
  • Jalil, A. ve Mahmud, S. F. (2009). Environment Kuznets curve for co2 emissions: a cointegration analysis for China. Energy Policy, 37(12), 5167-5172. google scholar
  • Kasman, A. ve Duman, Y. S. (2015). CO2 emissions, economic growth, energy consumption, trade and urbanization in new EU member and candidate countries: a panel data analysis. Economic Modelling, 44, 97-103. google scholar
  • Kim, S., Baek, J. ve Heo, E. (2019). A new look at the democracy-environment nexus: evidence from panel data for high- and low-income countries. Sustainability, 11, 1-14 google scholar
  • Küçükaksoy, İ. ve Akalin, G. (2017). Fisher Hipotezi’nin panel veri analizi ile test edilmesi: OECD ülkeleri uygulamasi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 35(1), 19-40. google scholar
  • Lau, L.S., Choong, C.K. ve Eng, Y.K. (2014). Investigation of the environmental Kuznets curve for carbon emissions in Malaysia: do foreign direct ınvestment and trade matter?. Energy Policy, 68, 490-497. google scholar
  • Li, Q. ve Reuveny, R. (2006). Democracy and environmental degradation. International Studies Quarterly, 50(4), 935. google scholar
  • Lv, Z. (2017). The effect of democracy on CO2 emissions in emerging countries: does the level of income matter?. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 72, 900-906 google scholar
  • Martmez-Zarzoso, I. ve Maruotti, A. (2011). The impact of urbanization on CO2 emissions: evidence from developing countries. Ecological Economics, 70(7), 1344-1353. google scholar
  • McCloskey, D.N. (1983). The rhetoric of economics. Journal of Economic Literature 21(2), 481517. google scholar
  • Midlarsky, M.I. (1998). Democracy and the environment: an empirical assessment. Journal of Peace Research, 35(3), 341-361. google scholar
  • Olson, M. (1993). Dictatorship, democracy, and development. The American Political Science Review, 87(3), 567-576. google scholar
  • Ozcan, B., Tzeremes, P. G., and Tzeremes, N. G. (2020). Energy consumption, economic growth and environmental degradation in OECD countries. Economic Modelling, 84, 203-213. google scholar
  • Pande R (2003) Can mandated political representation increase policy influence for disadvantaged minorities? Theory and evidence from India. The American Economic Review, 93(4), 1132-11. google scholar
  • Pata, U.K. (2019). Environmental Kuznets curve and trade openness in Turkey: Bootstrap ARDL approach with a structural break. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(20), 20264-20276. google scholar
  • Payne, R. A. (1995). Freedom and the environment. Journal of Democracy, 6(3), 41-55. google scholar
  • Pellegrini, L. ve Gerlagh, R. (2006). Corruption, democracy, and environmental policy. The Journal of Environment and Development, 15(3), 332-354 google scholar
  • Pesaran, H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. Working Paper, University of Cambridge, CWPE 0435. google scholar
  • Pesaran, H., Ullah, A. ve Yamagata, T. (2008). A bias-adjusted LM test of error cross-section independence. The Econometrics Journal, (11), 105-127. google scholar
  • Pesaran, M. H. (2006). Estimation and inference in large heterogeneous panels with a multifactor error structure. Econometrica, 74(4), 967-1012. google scholar
  • 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. google scholar
  • 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. google scholar
  • Romuald, K. S. (2011). Democratic ınstitutions and environmental quality: effects and transmission channels. EAAE 2011 Congress, Switzerland. google scholar
  • Scruggs, L. (2009). Democracy and environmental protection: an empirical analysis. Annual Meeting of The Midwest Political Science Association 67th Annual National Conference. The Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, Illinois google scholar
  • Shahbaz, M., Sbia, R., Hamdi, H., ve Ozturk, I. (2014). Economic growth, electricity consumption, urbanization and environmental degradation relationship in United Arab Emirates. Ecological Indicators, 45, 622-631. google scholar
  • Shahbaz, M., Nasreen, S., Ahmed, K. ve Hammoudeh, S. (2017). Trade openness-carbon emissions nexus: the ımportance of turning points of trade openness for country panels. Energy Economics, 61, 221-232. google scholar
  • Sharif, A. ve Raza, S. A. (2016). Dynamic relationship between urbanization, energy consumption and environmental degradation in Pakistan: Evidence from structure break testing. Journal of Management Sciences, 3(1), 1-21. google scholar
  • Sharif, A., Mishra, S., Sinha, A., Jiao, Z., Shahbaz, M. ve Afshan, S. (2020). The renewable energy consumption-environmental degradation nexus in Top-10 polluted countries: Fresh insights from quantile-on-quantile regression approach. Renewable Energy, 150, 670-690. google scholar
  • Torras, M. ve Boyce, J.K. (1998). Income, ınequality, and pollution: a reassessment of the environmental Kuznets curve. Ecological Economics, 25(2), 147-160. google scholar
  • United Nations (2019). News on millennium development goals. https://www.un.org/ millenniumgoals/ Data Accessed on 30.01.2022 google scholar
  • Usman, O., Olanipekun, I.O., Iorember, P.T. ve Abu-Goodman, M. (2020.) Modelling environmental degradation in South Africa: the effects of energy consumption, democracy, and globalization using innovation accounting tests. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(8), 8334-8349. google scholar
  • Ulucak, R. ve Khan, S. U. D. (2020). Determinants of the ecological footprint: role of renewable energy, natural resources, and urbanization. Sustainable Cities and Society, 54, 101996. google scholar
  • Ulucak, R. ve Ozcan, B. (2020). Relationship between energy consumption and environmental sustainability in OECD countries: the role of natural resources rents. Resources Policy, 69, 101803. google scholar
  • Wang, Z., Yin, F., Zhang, Y. ve Zhang, X. (2012). An empirical research on the influencing factors of regional CO2 emissions: evidence from Beijing city, China. Applied Energy, 100, 277-284. google scholar
  • Wang, R., Mirza, N., Vasbieva, D. G., Abbas, Q. ve Xiong, D. (2020). The nexus of carbon emissions, financial development, renewable energy consumption, and technological innovation: what should be the priorities in light of COP 21 Agreements?. Journal of Environmental Management, 271, 111027. google scholar
  • Ward, H. (2006). International linkages and environmental sustainability: the effectiveness of the regime network. Journal of Peace Research, 43(2), 149-166. google scholar
  • Westerlund, J. (2008). Panel cointegration tests of the Fisher effect. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 23(2), 193-233. google scholar
  • Winslow, M. (2005). Is democracy good for the environment?. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 48(5), 771-783. google scholar
  • Yağlıkara, A. (2022). Ekolojik ayak izi, ticaret ve yenilenebilir enerji ilişkisi:E-7 ükeleri için panel kantil regresyon analizi. İçinde Güncel Ekonomi Çalışmaları (Ed. M. Özmen ve V. Yurdadoğ), Ankara: Akaemisyen Yayınevi. google scholar
  • You, W.H., Zhu, H.M., Yu, K. ve Peng, C. (2015). Democracy, financial openness, and global carbon dioxide emissions: heterogeneity across existing emission levels. World Development, 66, 189-207. google scholar
  • Zafar, M. W., Saud, S., ve Hou, F. (2019). The impact of globalization and financial development on environmental quality: evidence from selected countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(13), 13246-13262. google scholar
  • Zhang, S., Liu, X. ve Bae, J. (2017). Does trade openness affect CO2 emissions: evidence from ten newly ındustrialized countries?. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24(21), 1761617625. google scholar

Citations

Copy and paste a formatted citation or use one of the options to export in your chosen format


EXPORT



APA

Ursavaş, N. (2022). The Impact of Democracy on Environmental Degradation in OECD Countries. Ekoist: Journal of Econometrics and Statistics, 0(37), 213-235. https://doi.org/10.26650/ekoist.2022.37.1118226


AMA

Ursavaş N. The Impact of Democracy on Environmental Degradation in OECD Countries. Ekoist: Journal of Econometrics and Statistics. 2022;0(37):213-235. https://doi.org/10.26650/ekoist.2022.37.1118226


ABNT

Ursavaş, N. The Impact of Democracy on Environmental Degradation in OECD Countries. Ekoist: Journal of Econometrics and Statistics, [Publisher Location], v. 0, n. 37, p. 213-235, 2022.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Ursavaş, Neslihan,. 2022. “The Impact of Democracy on Environmental Degradation in OECD Countries.” Ekoist: Journal of Econometrics and Statistics 0, no. 37: 213-235. https://doi.org/10.26650/ekoist.2022.37.1118226


Chicago: Humanities Style

Ursavaş, Neslihan,. The Impact of Democracy on Environmental Degradation in OECD Countries.” Ekoist: Journal of Econometrics and Statistics 0, no. 37 (Feb. 2023): 213-235. https://doi.org/10.26650/ekoist.2022.37.1118226


Harvard: Australian Style

Ursavaş, N 2022, 'The Impact of Democracy on Environmental Degradation in OECD Countries', Ekoist: Journal of Econometrics and Statistics, vol. 0, no. 37, pp. 213-235, viewed 1 Feb. 2023, https://doi.org/10.26650/ekoist.2022.37.1118226


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Ursavaş, N. (2022) ‘The Impact of Democracy on Environmental Degradation in OECD Countries’, Ekoist: Journal of Econometrics and Statistics, 0(37), pp. 213-235. https://doi.org/10.26650/ekoist.2022.37.1118226 (1 Feb. 2023).


MLA

Ursavaş, Neslihan,. The Impact of Democracy on Environmental Degradation in OECD Countries.” Ekoist: Journal of Econometrics and Statistics, vol. 0, no. 37, 2022, pp. 213-235. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/ekoist.2022.37.1118226


Vancouver

Ursavaş N. The Impact of Democracy on Environmental Degradation in OECD Countries. Ekoist: Journal of Econometrics and Statistics [Internet]. 1 Feb. 2023 [cited 1 Feb. 2023];0(37):213-235. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/ekoist.2022.37.1118226 doi: 10.26650/ekoist.2022.37.1118226


ISNAD

Ursavaş, Neslihan. The Impact of Democracy on Environmental Degradation in OECD Countries”. Ekoist: Journal of Econometrics and Statistics 0/37 (Feb. 2023): 213-235. https://doi.org/10.26650/ekoist.2022.37.1118226



TIMELINE


Submitted18.05.2022
Accepted04.10.2022
Published Online17.10.2022

LICENCE


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


SHARE




Istanbul University Press aims to contribute to the dissemination of ever growing scientific knowledge through publication of high quality scientific journals and books in accordance with the international publishing standards and ethics. Istanbul University Press follows an open access, non-commercial, scholarly publishing.