ارزیابی اثرات آزادی‌های سیاسی و اقتصادی بر آلودگی محیط زیست در کشورهای عضو سازمان همکاری اسلامی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری اقتصاد کشاورزی، گرایش منابع طبیعی و محیط زیست، دانشگاه زابل، ایران.

2 استادیار دانشکده کشاورزی، گروه اقتصاد کشاورزی، دانشگاه زابل، ایران.

3 عضو هیات علمی گروه اقتصاد دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی بوشهر، ایران.

چکیده

چکیده
مقدمه و هدف: هدف این پژوهش بررسی اثرات آزادی سیاسی و اقتصادی بر مقدار انتشار کربن در کشورهای عضو سازمان همکاری اسلامی طی سال­های 1999-2015 است. در این پژوهش ضمن برآورد یک مدل کلی شامل 50 کشور عضو، 2 مدل نیز به تفکیک درجه آزادی سیاسی کشورها شامل کشورهای غیرآزاد و نسبتاً آزاد مورد بررسی قرار گرفت.
مواد و روش­ها: برای این منظور، از روش گشتاور تعمیم یافته استفاده شد و برای بررسی مانایی، از آزمون­های ریشه واحد برایتونگ، تیم، پسران و شین و هادری استفاده شد. هم‌چنین، برای بررسی هم انباشتگی، آزمون پدرونی بکار گرفته شد.
یافته ­ها: نتایج حاصل از برآورد نشان داد که رابطه میان آزادی سیاسی و انتشار کربن معنادار و منفی و رابطه آزادی اقتصادی و انتشار CO2 معنادار و مثبت است. رابطه رشد اقتصادی و انتشار کربن مثبت و معنادار است و با توجه به رابطه منفی مجذور رشد اقتصادی و آلودگی محیط­زیست، وجود منحنی محیط زیستی کوزنتس در کشورهای عضو سازمان همکاری اسلامی مورد تأیید قرار می­گیرد. هم‌چنین، مشخص شد که اثر متغیرهای مصرف انرژی، شاخص صنعتی سازی و اندازه جمعیت بر دی‌اکسید کربن نیز مثبت است. در کشورهای غیرآزاد اثر آزادی سیاسی و آزادی اقتصادی بر انتشار کربن معنادار و مثبت است. این در حالی است که در کشورهای نسبتاً آزاد، اثر آزادی سیاسی بر مقدار انتشار دی‌اکسید کربن منفی و اثر آزادی اقتصادی غیر معنادار است.
بحث و نتیجه ­گیری: با توجه به نتایج به دست آمده از این مطالعه، افزایش آزادی­های سیاسی در کشورهای عضو سازمان همکاری اسلامی، مقدار انتشار    کاهش خواهد داد. در واقع این مفهوم نشان می­دهد که انتظار می­رود که با ایجاد فرصت­های بیش‌تر برای شنیده شدن صدای فعالین محیط­زیست، مقدار آلودگی کاهش یابد. این نتیجه به خوبی اهمیت وجود آزادی سیاسی را مشخص می­سازد. چراکه با وجود آزادی سیاسی و حاکمیت دولت­های دموکراتیک مقدار پاسخگویی بیش‌تر بوده و سرعت گردش داده‌ها نیز بالاتر است. مطبوعات آزاد و دیگر اشکال اطلاع‌رسانی موجب می‌شود که شهروندان داده‌های بیش‌تری پیرامون مسائل محیط زیستی داشته باشند. همه این موارد اهمیت مسئله شفافیت و آگاه بودن مردم را مشخص می­کند. چراکه آگاهی در نهایت منجر به مطالبه گری شده و مردم مطالبه گر و آگاه نسبت به مسائل محیط زیستی، دولت­ها را وادار به حمایت از محیط­زیست خواهند کرد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Assessing the Effects of Political and Economic Freedom on Environmental Pollution in OIC Member Countries

نویسندگان [English]

  • seyed mohammadreza mahdavian 1
  • Hamid mohammadi 2
  • Vahid Dehbashi 2
  • Masood Dehdashti 3
1 PhD student in Environmental Economics - University of Zabol.
2 Assistant Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zabol, Iran.
3 Deparment of Economic, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Busher Branch, Islamic Azad University, Busher, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Abstract
Introduction: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of political and economic freedom on carbon emissions in OIC member states during 1999-2015.  In the present study, while estimating a general model including 50 member countries, two models were also examined by the degree of political freedom of countries, including non-free and partially free countries.
Material and Methods: The Generalized Method of Moment (GMM) method was used for this purpose. To verify the stationary, Breitung, Im, Pesaran, Shin, and Hadri tests have been used. Also, to investigate co-integration, the Pedroni test was applied.
Finding: The results showed that the relationship between political freedom and carbon emissions is significant and negative and the relationship between economic freedom and CO2 emissions is significant and positive. The relationship between economic growth and carbon emissions is positive and significant, and due to the negative relationship between economic growth and the environment, the existence of the Kuznets environmental curve in the member countries of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation was confirmed. It was also found that the effect of energy consumption variables, industrialization index, and population size on carbon dioxide is also positive. In non-free countries, the effect of political freedom and economic freedom on carbon emissions is significant and positive. In relatively free countries, however, the effect of political freedom on carbon dioxide emissions is negative and the effect of economic freedom is insignificant.
Conclusion: According to the results of the present study, increasing political freedoms in OIC member countries reduces CO2 emissions. In fact, this concept shows that pollution is expected to be reduced by providing more opportunities to listen to environmental activists. This result highlights the importance of political freedom. Because despite political freedom and the rule of democratic governments, the rate of accountability is higher and the flow of information is faster. Free press and other forms of information provide citizens with more information on environmental issues. All of this highlights the importance of transparency and public awareness. Because awareness ultimately leads to demand, people who are demanding and aware of environmental issues force governments to protect the environment.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Political Freedom
  • Economic Growth
  • Carbon Emissions
  • Industrialization Index
  • Urbanization
  • EKC

مراجع

  1. Ansuategi, A., & Escapa, M. Economic growth and greenhouse gas emissions. Ecological Economics. 2002, 40(1): 23-37. ]org/10.1016/S0921-8009(01)00272-5[
  2. The United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. Air Publications & Report.
  3. Sohag, K., Al Mamun, M., Uddin, G. S., & Ahmed, A. M. Sectoral output, energy use, and CO2 emission in middle-income countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2017, 24(10): 9754-9764.‏]org/10.1007/s11356-017-8599-z [
  4. Yeh, J. C., & Liao, C. H. Impact of population and economic growth on carbon emissions in Taiwan using an analytic tool STIRPAT. Sustainable Environment Research. 2017, 27(1): 41-48. ]org/10.1016/j.serj.2016.10.001 [
  5. World Bank report. World Bank Development Indicators. 2017, https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/26447
  6. International Energy Agency Report, Energy and Climate Change. World Energy Outlook Special Report. 2017, https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2017
  7. Dong, K., Hochman, G., Zhang, Y., Sun, R., Li, H., & Liao, H. CO2 emissions, economic and population growth, and renewable energy: Empirical evidence across regions. Energy Economics. 2018, 75: 180-192. ]org/10.1016/j.eneco.2018.08.017 [
  8. BP statistical review of world energy. 2017; https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.
  9. Organisation of Islamic Cooperation report. 2018. sesric.org
  10. Farzanegan, M. R., & Markwardt, G. Development and pollution in the Middle East and North Africa: Democracy matters. Journal of Policy Modeling. 2018, 40(2): 350-374. ]org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2018.01.010 [
  11. Scruggs, L. A. Political and Economic Inequality and the Environment. Ecological Economics. 1998, 26(3): 259–275. ]org/10.1016/S0921-8009(97)00118-3 [
  12. Deacon, R. T. Public Good Provision under Dictatorship and Democracy, Public Choice. 2009, 139: 241-262. ]org/10.1007/s11127-008-9391-x [
  13. Kotov, V., & Nikitina, E. Russia and International Environmental Cooperation, In Green Globe Yearbook of International Cooperation on Environment and Development. 1995, 17-17.
  14. Nekooei, M H, Zeinalzadeh, R., & Sadeghi, Z. The Effects of Democracy on Environment Quality Index in Selected OIC Countries, Iranian Journal of Economic Studies. 2015, 4(2): 115– 136. (In Persian). ]org/10.22099/ijes.2015.4124 [
  15. Grossman, G. M., & Krueger, A. B. Environmental impacts of a North American free-trade agreement (No. w3914). National Bureau of Economic Research. 1991,‏ ]10.3386/w3914 [
  16. Payne, R. A. Freedom and the environment. Journal of democracy. 1995, 6(3): 41-55.‏ ]10.1353/jod.1995.0053[
  17. Freedom house report. Global Economic Freedom Report. 2020. FreedomHouse.org
  18. Carlsson, F., & Lundström, S. Political and economic freedom and the environment: the case of CO2 Department of Economics, Goteborg University.‏2001.
  19. Agheli, L., Sadeghi, H., & Asvar, A. Impact of democracy on CO2 emissions. Quarterly Journal of Quantitative Economics. 2014, 11(2), 21-40. (In Persian).
  20. Faraji Dizaji, S., & Ousia, N. A. S. The Effects of Economic, Financial, and Political Developments on Iran’s CO2 Emissions. Iranian Economic Review. 2017, 21(4): 925-940.‏] 10.22059 /IER.2017.64102 [
  21. Lv, Z. The effect of democracy on CO2 emissions in emerging countries: Does the level of income matter. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2017, 72: 900-906.‏ ]org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.01.096 [
  22. Adams, S., & Klobodu, E. K. M. Urbanization, democracy, bureaucratic quality, and environmental degradation. Journal of Policy Modeling. 2017, 39(6): 1035-1051.‏ ]org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2017.04.006 [
  23. ‏Adom, P. K., Kwakwa, P. A., & Amankwaa, A. The long-run effects of economic, demographic, and political indices on actual and potential CO2 emissions. Journal of environmental management. 2018, 218: 516-526.‏ ]org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.04.090 [
  24. ‏Joshi, P., & Beck, K. Democracy and carbon dioxide emissions: Assessing the interactions of political and economic freedom and the environmental Kuznets curve. Energy Research & Social Science. 2018, 39: 46-54. ]org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.10.020 [
  25. The Heritage Foundation‏. 2020. heritage.org
  26. Miller, T., Kim, A. B., & Holmes, K. Index of economic freedom. Washington DC: The Heritage Foundation.‏
  27. Wood, J., & Herzog, I. Economic Freedom and Air Quality, Fraser Institute, Vancouver, Canada. 2014.
  28. Antweiler, W., Copeland, B. R., & Taylor, M. S. Is free trade good for the environment? American economic review. 2001, 91(4): 877-908. ]DOI: 10.1257/aer.91.4.877[
  29. ‏ Carlsson, F., & Lundström, S. The effects of economic and political freedom on CO2 emissions. Economic Studies, Department of Economics, School of Economics and Commercial Law, Göteborg University: Gothenburg, Sweden. 2003, 79.‏
  30. Arrow, K., Dasgupta, P., Goulder, L., Daily, G., Ehrlich, P., Heal, & Walker, B. Are we consuming too much? Journal of Economic Perspectives. 2004, 18(3): 147-172.‏ ]DOI: 10.1257/0895330042162377 [
  31. Boopen, S., & Vinesh, S. On the relationship between CO2 emissions and economic growth: the Mauritian experience. In the University of Mauritius, Mauritius Environment Outlook Report. 2011.
  32. Kuznets, S. Economic growth and income inequality. The American economic review. 1955, 45(1): 1-28.
  33. Pao, H. T., & Tsai, C. M. CO2 emissions, energy consumption, and economic growth in BRIC countries. Energy policy. 2010, 38(12): 7850-7860.‏ ]org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.08.045[
  34. Arouri, M. E. H., Youssef, A. B., M'henni, H., & Rault, C. Energy consumption, economic growth, and CO2 emissions in the Middle East and North African countries. Energy policy. 2012, 45: 342-349.‏ ]org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.02.042 [
  35. Antonakakis, N., Chatziantoniou, I., & Filis, G. Energy consumption, CO2 emissions, and economic growth: An ethical dilemma. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2017, 68: 808-824.‏ ]org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.105 [
  36. Liddle, B. Impact of population, age structure, and urbanization on carbon emissions/energy consumption: evidence from macro-level, cross-country analyses. Population and Environment. 2014, 35(3): 286-304.‏ ]org/10.1007/s11111-013-0198-4 [
  37. Du, W. C., & Xia, X. H. How does urbanization affect GHG emissions? A cross-country panel threshold data analysis. Applied Energy. 2018, 229: 872-883. ]org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.08.050 [‏
  38. Khoshnevis yazdi, S., & Bahram, S. The Econometric Model FOR CO2 Emissions, Energy Consumption, Economic Growth, Foreign Trade, Financial Development and Urbanization of Iran. Journal of Environmental Research and Development. 2014, 8(3). (In Persian)
  39. Sadorsky, P. The Effect of Urbanization on CO2 Emissions in Emerging Economies. Energy Economics. 2014, 41: 147-153.‏ ] org/10.1016/j.eneco.2013.11.007 [
  40. Hamisu sadi, A. S., Abdul-Rahim, A. S., & Ribadu, M. B. Urbanization and carbon dioxide emissions in Singapore: evidence from the ARDL approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2017, 24(2): 1967-1974.‏ ]org/10.1007/s11356-016-7935-z [
  41. Martinez-Zarzoso, I., Bengochea-Morancho, A., & Morales-Lage, R. The impact of population on CO2 emissions: evidence from European countries. Environmental and Resource Economics. 2007, 38(4): 497-512.‏ ]org/10.1007/s10640-007-9096-5 [
  42. Samadi, A. H., & Abolhasan Beigi, K. Testing Wagner’s Law in Selected OIC Member States Evidence from Panel Cointegration Tests. Journal of Economic Research and Policies. 2013, 20(64), 115-130.‏ http://qjerp.ir/article-1-525-en.html
  43. Pesaran, M. H. General diagnostic tests for cross-sectional dependence in panels. Empirical Economics.2004, 1-38.‏
  44. Pedroni, P. Panel cointegration: asymptotic and finite sample properties of pooled time series tests with an application to the PPP hypothesis. Econometric theory. 2004, 20(3), 597-625.‏ ]org/10.1017/S0266466604203073 [
  45. Kao, C. Spurious regression and residual-based tests for cointegration in panel data. Journal of econometrics. 1999;90(1), 1-44.‏ ]org/10.1016/S0304-4076(98)00023-2 [
  46. Mohammadiyan Mansour, S., & Golkandan, A. The Impact of the Business Cycles on Income Inequality in Selected Islamic Countries (Cup-FM Approach), Islamic Economics Studies Bi-quarterly Journal. 2016, 8(2): 7-38. (In Persian). ]10.30497/IES.2016.1797 [
  47. Breitung, J., The local power of some unit root tests for panel data. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. 2001, ]org/10.1016/S0731-9053(00)15006-6 [
  48. Im, K. S., Pesaran, M. H., & Shin, Y. Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of econometrics, 2003, 115(1): pp.53-74.‏ ]org/10.1016/S0304-4076(03)00092-7 [
  49. Hadri, K. Testing for stationarity in heterogeneous panel data. The Econometrics Journal. 2000, 3(2): 148-161.‏ ] org/10.1111/1368-423X.00043 [
  50. Enders, W. Applied Econometric Time Series, 4th 2004.
  51. Pedroni, P. Critical values for cointegration tests in heterogeneous panels with multiple regressors. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and statistics. 1999, 61(S1): 653-670.‏ ]org/10.1111/1468-0084.0610s1653 [
  52. Arellano, M., & Bond, S. Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. The review of economic studies.1991, 58(2), 277-297.‏ ] org/10.2307/2297968 [
  53. Blundell, R., & Bond, S. Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of econometrics. 1998, 87(1), 115-143.‏ ]org/10.1016/S0304-4076(98)00009-8 [
  54. Caselli, F., Esquivel, G., & Lefort, F. Reopening the convergence debate: a new look at cross-country growth empirics. Journal of economic growth. 1996, 1(3): 363-389.‏ ]org/10.1007/BF00141044 [
  55. Farzin, Y. H., & Bond, C. A. Democracy and environmental quality. Journal of Development Economics. 2006, 81(1): 213-235.‏ ]org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2005.04.003 [
  56. Hao, Y., Chen, H., & Zhang, Q. Will income inequality affect environmental quality? Analysis based on China's provincial panel data. Ecological indicators. 2016, 67, 533-542.‏ ]org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.03.025 [
  57. Apergis, N., & Ozturk, I. Testing environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in Asian countries. Ecological Indicators. 2015, 52: 16-22. ]org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.11.026 [

 

فصلنامه علمی -پژوهشی تحقیقات اقتصاد کشاورزی
دوره 14، شماره 2
مرداد 1401
صفحه 33-14

فایل ها

سابقه مقاله

  • تاریخ دریافت: 20 مرداد 1398
  • تاریخ بازنگری: 03 آذر 1398
  • تاریخ پذیرش: 10 شهریور 1401

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار