OECD ÜLKELERİNDE MALİYE POLİTİKASI ARAÇLARININ KARBON AYAK İZİ ÜZERİNDEKİ ETKİSİ: PANEL VERİ ANALİZİ

Azad Erdem

doi:10.37880/cumuiibf.1944621

TR EN

OECD ÜLKELERİNDE MALİYE POLİTİKASI ARAÇLARININ KARBON AYAK İZİ ÜZERİNDEKİ ETKİSİ: PANEL VERİ ANALİZİ

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, 1995-2022 döneminde 19 OECD ülkesinde enerji vergisi, çevre koruma harcamaları ve kişi başına gelirin karbon ayak izi üzerindeki uzun dönemli etkilerini incelemek ve Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi (ÇKE) hipotezinin geçerliliğini sınamaktır. Paris Anlaşması ve 2030 Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma Amaçları çerçevesinde karbon emisyonlarını azaltacak maliye politikası araçlarının belirlenmesi, hem akademik araştırmalar hem de politika yapımı açısından çalışmanın temel motivasyonunu oluşturmaktadır. Ön testler yatay kesit bağımlılığı ve eğim heterojenliğinin varlığını ortaya koyduğundan ikinci nesil panel birim kök (CIPS) ve eşbütünleşme (Durbin-Hausman) testleri uygulanmış, uzun dönem katsayıları Genişletilmiş Ortalama Grup (AMG) ve Düzenlileştirilmiş Ortak Korelasyonlu Etkiler (RCCE) tahmincileriyle ülke bazında tahmin edilmiştir. Yalnızca her iki tahmincide anlamlı ve aynı işaretli katsayılar temel bulgu olarak kabul edilmiş, ters U ve U biçimli ilişkiler Lind ve Mehlum testiyle sınanmıştır. Bulgular, maliye politikası araçlarının etkilerinin ülkeler arasında belirgin biçimde farklılaştığını göstermektedir. Enerji vergisi Yunanistan’da her iki tahmincide %5 düzeyinde anlamlı olarak karbon ayak izini azaltmaktadır. Almanya’daki azaltıcı ve Lüksemburg’daki artırıcı etki ise RCCE tahmincisinde yalnızca %10 düzeyinde anlamlı olduğundan daha zayıf kanıt niteliğindedir. Çevre koruma harcamalarının hiçbir ülkede sağlam bir etkisi bulunmamaktadır. Lind-Mehlum testine göre ters U biçimli ilişki her iki tahminci altında yalnızca Belçika’da doğrulanmaktadır (AMG’de %5, RCCE’de %10) ve dönüm noktası yaklaşık 38.400-38.800 ABD dolarıdır. Panel düzeyindeki ters U biçimli ilişki ise yalnızca RCCE tahmincisinde doğrulanmaktadır. Çalışma, literatürde çoğunlukla ayrı ayrı incelenen enerji vergileri ve çevre koruma harcamalarını, dış ticaret yoluyla ithal edilen emisyonları da kapsayan tüketim temelli karbon ayak izi göstergesi üzerinden aynı ampirik çerçevede değerlendirmekte ve maliye politikası araçlarının ülkeye özgü heterojen etkilerini ortaya koyarak literatüre katkı sunmaktadır.

Keywords

THE IMPACT OF FISCAL POLICY INSTRUMENTS ON CARBON FOOTPRINT IN OECD COUNTRIES: A PANEL DATA ANALYSIS

Abstract

This study aims to examine the long-run effects of energy taxes, environmental protection expenditures, and per capita income on the carbon footprint in 19 OECD countries over 1995-2022 and to test the validity of the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) hypothesis. The study is motivated by the need to identify fiscal policy instruments capable of reducing carbon emissions in line with the Paris Agreement and the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. Since preliminary tests reveal cross-sectional dependence and slope heterogeneity, second-generation panel unit root (CIPS) and cointegration (Durbin-Hausman) tests are applied, and long-run coefficients are estimated at the country level using the Augmented Mean Group (AMG) and Regularized Common Correlated Effects (RCCE) estimators. Only coefficients that are significant and have the same sign under both estimators are considered main findings, and inverted U- and U-shaped relationships are tested using the Lind and Mehlum test. The results show that the effects of fiscal policy instruments differ markedly across countries. Energy taxes reduce the carbon footprint in Greece, significant at the 5% level under both estimators. The reducing effect in Germany and the increasing effect in Luxembourg are significant only at the 10% level under the RCCE estimator and therefore constitute weaker evidence. Environmental protection expenditures have no robust effect in any country. According to the Lind-Mehlum test, an inverted U-shaped relationship is confirmed under both estimators only in Belgium (at the 5% level under AMG and the 10% level under RCCE), with a turning point of approximately USD 38,400-38,800, while the inverted U-shaped relationship at the panel level is confirmed only by the RCCE estimator. The study contributes to the literature by jointly evaluating energy taxes and environmental protection expenditures, which are mostly examined separately, within the same empirical framework using the consumption-based carbon footprint, which also covers emissions embodied in imports, and by revealing the country-specific heterogeneous effects of fiscal policy instruments.

Keywords

References

Adebayo, T. S., Pata, U. K., & Akadiri, S. S. (2024). A comparison of CO2 emissions, load capacity factor, and ecological footprint for Thailand’s environmental sustainability. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 26(1), 2203-2223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02810-9.
Ahmad, M., Jabeen, G., & Wu, Y. (2021). Heterogeneity of pollution haven/halo hypothesis and Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis across development levels of Chinese provinces. Journal of Cleaner Production, 285, 124898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124898.
Ahn, S. C., & Horenstein, A. R. (2013). Eigenvalue ratio test for the number of factors. Econometrica, 81(3), 1203-1227. https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA8968.
Akdag, S., Yildirim, H., & Alola, A. A. (2025). Comparative benefits of environmental protection expenditures and environmental taxes in driving environmental quality of the European countries. Natural Resources Forum, 49(3), 2188-2203. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-8947.12464.
Alam, F. (2024). Environmental Kuznets curve and sustainable development in OECD countries: A panel data analysis. European Journal of Development Studies, 4(6), 9-15. https://doi.org/10.24018/ejdevelop.2024.4.6.392.
Aydin, M., Sogut, Y., & Altundemir, M. E. (2023). Moving toward the sustainable environment of European Union countries: Investigating the effect of natural resources and green budgeting on environmental quality. Resources Policy, 83, 103737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103737.
Bashir, M. F., Ma, B., Shahbaz, M., & Jiao, Z. (2020). The nexus between environmental tax and carbon emissions with the roles of environmental technology and financial development. PLOS ONE, 15(11), e0242412. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242412.
Ben Jebli, M., Ben Youssef, S., & Ozturk, I. (2016). Testing environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: The role of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption and trade in OECD countries. Ecological Indicators, 60, 824-831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.08.031.

Bovenberg, A. L., & de Mooij, R. A. (1994). Environmental levies and distortionary taxation. American Economic Review, 84(4), 1085-1089.
Bozatli, O., & Akca, H. (2023). The effects of environmental taxes, renewable energy consumption and environmental technology on the ecological footprint: Evidence from advanced panel data analysis. Journal of Environmental Management, 345, 118857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118857.
Bozatli, O., Erdem, A., Aydin, M., & Bektur, C. (2026). Towards SDG‐Aligned Carbon Neutrality in EU Countries: How Energy Policy, Energy R&D Budget, and Sustainable Growth Shape the Transition?. Sustainable Development. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.70848.
Breusch, T. S., & Pagan, A. R. (1980). The Lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics. Review of Economic Studies, 47(1), 239-253. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297111.
Caglar, A. E., & Yavuz, E. (2023). The role of environmental protection expenditures and renewable energy consumption in the context of ecological challenges: Insights from the European Union with the novel panel econometric approach. Journal of Environmental Management, 331, 117317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117317.
Copeland, B. R., & Taylor, M. S. (1994). North-South trade and the environment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 109(3), 755-787. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118421.
Dahmani, M. (2024). Environmental quality and sustainability: Exploring the role of environmental taxes, environment-related technologies, and R&D expenditure. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, 26(2), 449-477. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10018-023-00387-9.
Eberhardt, M., & Teal, F. (2010). Productivity analysis in global manufacturing production. Economics Series Working Papers 515, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
Erdem, A., Okoth, E., Demirtas, N., Sogut, Y., & Erdogan, S. (2026). Do fiscal policies, energy productivity, and renewable energy generation contribute to environmental sustainability in EU countries? Evidence from new panel data estimators. Renewable Energy, 125453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2026.125453.
Esen, Ö., & Dündar, M. (2021). Do energy taxes reduce the carbon footprint? Evidence from Turkey. JOEEP: Journal of Emerging Economies and Policy, 6(2), 179-186.
European Commission, Eurostat. (2026). Environmental taxes and subsidies. Eurostat. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/environment/information-data/environmental-taxes-subsidies (Erişim tarihi: 19.04.2026).
European Environment Agency. (2025). Belgium: Country profile.
https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/europe-environment-2025/countries/belgium (Erişim tarihi: 22.03.2026)
Fernández, Y. F., López, M. F., & Blanco, B. O. (2018). Innovation for sustainability: The impact of R&D spending on CO2 emissions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 3459-3467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.001.
Global Footprint Network. (2026). Ecological footprint per capita trends [Veri seti]. Global Footprint Network Data Portal. https://data.footprintnetwork.org/#/analyzeTrends?type=EFCpc&cn=5001 (Erişim tarihi: 19.04.2026).
Grossman, G. M., & Krueger, A. B. (1991). Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement. NBER Working Paper, No. 3914. https://doi.org/10.3386/w3914.
Grossman, G. M., & Krueger, A. B. (1995). Economic growth and the environment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(2), 353-377. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118443.
Guney, E., Sogut, Y., Demirtas, N., Koseoglu, Y., & Sanver, C. (2025). Harmonising progress: assessing the impact of economic freedom, economic growth, urbanisation and environmental protection expenditures on load capacity in selected European union countries. Environmental Sciences Europe, 37(1), 51. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-025-01088-8.
Halkos, G. E., & Paizanos, E. A. (2013). The effect of government expenditure on the environment: An empirical investigation. Ecological Economics, 91, 48-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.04.002.
Hao, L. N., Umar, M., Khan, Z., & Ali, W. (2021). Green growth and low carbon emission in G7 countries: how critical the network of environmental taxes, renewable energy and human capital is?. Science of the Total Environment, 752, 141853. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141853.
Hashmi, R., & Alam, K. (2019). Dynamic relationship among environmental regulation, innovation, CO2 emissions, population, and economic growth in OECD countries: A panel investigation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 231, 1100-1109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.325.
International Monetary Fund. (2026). Government Finance Statistics (GFS) - Expenditure by Function of Government (COFOG), Environmental Protection (% of GDP). IMF Data. https://data.imf.org/?sk=a0867067-d23c-4ebc-ad23-d3b015045405. (Erişim tarihi: 19.04.2026).
Juodis, A. (2022). A regularization approach to common correlated effects estimation. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 37(4), 788-810. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.2899.
Karlilar Pata, S., Erdogan, S., Kartal, M. T., & Pata, U. K. (2024). Navigating the role of transport and energy taxes on carbon neutrality in Poland: A Fourier-based approach. Energy & Environment, 0958305X241270249. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X241270249.
Kartal, M. T. (2024). Quantile-based effect of energy, transport, and total environmental tax on ecological footprint in EU5 countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 31(13), 20033-20047. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-32214-3.
Khaddage-Soboh, N., Safi, A., Rasheed, M. F., & Hasnaoui, A. (2023). Examining the role of natural resource rent, environmental regulations, and environmental taxes in sustainable development: Evidence from G-7 economies. Resources Policy, 86, 104071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.104071.
Kuznets, S. (1955). Economic growth and income inequality. American Economic Review, 45(1), 1-28.
Lind, J. T., & Mehlum, H. (2010). With or without U? The appropriate test for a U-shaped relationship. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 72(1), 109-118. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2009.00569.x.
Liobikienė, G., Butkus, M., & Matuzevičiūtė, K. (2019). The contribution of energy taxes to climate change policy in the European Union (EU). Resources, 8(2), 63. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources8020063.
López, R., Galinato, G. I., & Islam, A. (2011). Fiscal spending and the environment: Theory and empirics. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 62(2), 180-198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2011.03.001.
Ma, F., Saleem, H., Ding, X., Nazir, S., & Tariq, S. (2024). Do natural resource rents, green technological innovation, and renewable energy matter for ecological sustainability? Role of green policies in testing the environmental kuznets curve hypothesis. Resources Policy, 91, 104844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2024.104844.
Manta, A. G., Doran, N. M., Bădîrcea, R. M., Badareu, G., & Țăran, A. M. (2023). Does the implementation of a Pigouvian tax be considered an effective approach to address climate change mitigation?. Economic Analysis and Policy, 80, 1719-1731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2023.11.002.
Mehboob, M. Y., Ma, B., Sadiq, M., & Mehboob, M. B. (2024). How do nuclear energy consumption, environmental taxes, and trade globalization impact ecological footprints? Novel policy insight from nuclear power countries. Energy, 313, 133661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2024.133661.
Mehta, D., & Prajapati, P. (2024). Asymmetric effect of environment tax and spending on CO2 emissions of European Union. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 31(18), 27416-27431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-32990-y.
Metcalf, G. E. (2003). Environmental levies and distortionary taxation: Pigou, taxation and pollution. Journal of Public Economics, 87(2), 313-322. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2727(01)00116-5.
Moshiri, S., & Daneshmand, A. (2020). How effective is government spending on environmental protection in a developing country? An empirical evidence from Iran. Journal of Economic Studies, 47(4), 789-803. https://doi.org/10.1108/JES-12-2018-0458.
Murad, S. W., Rahman, A., & Mohsin, A. K. M. (2025). From policy to progress: Environmental taxation to mitigate air pollution in OECD countries. Journal of Environmental Management, 374, 124143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.124143.
OECD. (2023). Effective carbon rates 2023: Pricing greenhouse gas emissions through taxes and emissions trading. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/b84d5b36-en.
Onwe, J. C., Bandyopadhyay, A., Hamid, I., Rej, S., & Hossain, M. E. (2023). Environment sustainability through energy transition and globalization in G7 countries: What role does environmental tax play?. Renewable Energy, 218, 119302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2023.119302.
Özmen, İ., & Mutascu, M. (2025). Don’t look earth: Environmental taxes effect on CO2 emissions, evidence from moments quantile regression for EU countries. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 27(2), 4619-4658. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-04092-1.
Panayotou, T. (1993). Empirical tests and policy analysis of environmental degradation at different stages of economic development (Working Paper No. WP238). International Labour Office.
Pesaran, M. H. (2006). Estimation and inference in large heterogeneous panels with a multifactor error structure. Econometrica, 74(4), 967-1012. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2006.00692.x.
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.951.
Pesaran, M. H. (2021). General diagnostic tests for cross-sectional dependence in panels. Empirical Economics, 60(1), 13-50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-020-01875-7.
Pesaran, M. H., & Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142(1), 50-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.010.
Pigou, A. C. (1932). The economics of welfare. Macmillan.
Radulescu, M., Sinisi, C. I., Popescu, C., Iacob, S. E., & Popescu, L. (2017). Environmental tax policy in Romania in the context of the EU: Double Dividend Theory. Sustainability, 9(11), 1986. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9111986.
Saqib, N., Radulescu, M., Usman, M., Balsalobre-Lorente, D., & Cilan, T. (2023). Environmental technology, economic complexity, renewable electricity, environmental taxes and CO2 emissions: Implications for low-carbon future in G-10 bloc. Heliyon, 9(6). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16457.
Saqib, N., Usman, M., Radulescu, M., Șerbu, R. S., Kamal, M., & Belascu, L. A. (2025). Synergizing green energy, natural resources, global integration, and environmental taxation: Pioneering a sustainable development goal framework for carbon neutrality targets. Energy & Environment, 36(6), 2966-2990. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X231215319.
Schandl, H., Hatfield-Dodds, S., Wiedmann, T., Geschke, A., Cai, Y., West, J., ... & Owen, A. (2016). Decoupling global environmental pressure and economic growth: scenarios for energy use, materials use and carbon emissions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 132, 45-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.100.
Selden, T. M., & Song, D. (1994). Environmental quality and development: Is there a Kuznets curve for air pollution emissions? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 27(2), 147-162. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1994.1031.
Shafik, N., & Bandyopadhyay, S. (1992). Economic growth and environmental quality: Time series and cross-country evidence (Policy Research Working Paper No. WPS 904). World Bank.
Singhania, M., & Saini, N. (2021). Demystifying pollution haven hypothesis: Role of FDI. Journal of Business Research, 123, 516-528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.10.007.
Sugiharti, D. K., Hartanto, G. S., Yuliafitri, I., & Ismail, S. (2025). The Function of Taxes in Realizing the Welfare of the People and Environmental Protection. Jurnal IUS Kajian Hukum dan Keadilan, 13(3), 602-620. https://doi.org/10.29303/ius.v13i3.1843.
Tao, R., Umar, M., Naseer, A., & Razi, U. (2021). The dynamic effect of eco-innovation and environmental taxes on carbon neutrality target in emerging seven (E7) economies. Journal of Environmental Management, 299, 113525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113525.
Varkey, A. M., & Johny, E. (2026). Climate Change as a Negative Global Production Externality. In Energy Economics and Policy: Navigating the Global Energy Market (pp. 1-9). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-032-05482-1_1.
Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. (1996). Our ecological footprint: Reducing human impact on the earth. New Society Publishers.
Westerlund, J. (2008). Panel cointegration tests of the Fisher effect. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 23(2), 193-233. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.967.
Wolde-Rufael, Y., & Mulat-Weldemeskel, E. (2021). Do environmental taxes and environmental stringency policies reduce CO2 emissions? Evidence from 7 emerging economies. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(18), 22392-22408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11475-8.
World Bank. (2026). GDP per capita (constant 2015 US$) [Veri seti]. World Bank Open Data. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD (Erişim tarihi: 19.04.2026).
Xu, Y., Wen, S., & Tao, C. Q. (2023). Impact of environmental tax on pollution control: A sustainable development perspective. Economic Analysis and Policy, 79, 89-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2023.06.006.
Yılancı, V., Çütçü, İ., Çayır, B., & Sağlam, M. S. (2023). Pollution haven or pollution halo in the fishing footprint: Evidence from Indonesia. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 188, 114626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2023.114626.
Zhou, Y., Adebayo, T. S., Yin, W., & Abbas, S. (2023). The co-movements among renewable energy, total environmental tax, and ecological footprint in the United Kingdom: Evidence from wavelet local multiple correlation analysis. Energy Economics, 126, 106900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2023.106900.

Details

Primary Language

Turkish

Subjects

Panel Data Analysis, Policy and Administration (Other)

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Azad Erdem ^*
0000-0001-7451-3253
Türkiye

Publication Date

October 30, 2026

Submission Date

May 5, 2026

Acceptance Date

October 27, 2026

Published in Issue

Year 2026 Volume: 27 Number: 4

DOI

https://doi.org/10.37880/cumuiibf.1944621

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA84WC46RJ

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

APA

Erdem, A. (2026). OECD ÜLKELERİNDE MALİYE POLİTİKASI ARAÇLARININ KARBON AYAK İZİ ÜZERİNDEKİ ETKİSİ: PANEL VERİ ANALİZİ. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 27(4), 1316-1343. https://doi.org/10.37880/cumuiibf.1944621

AMA

1.Erdem A. OECD ÜLKELERİNDE MALİYE POLİTİKASI ARAÇLARININ KARBON AYAK İZİ ÜZERİNDEKİ ETKİSİ: PANEL VERİ ANALİZİ. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi. 2026;27(4):1316-1343. doi:10.37880/cumuiibf.1944621

Chicago

Erdem, Azad. 2026. “OECD ÜLKELERİNDE MALİYE POLİTİKASI ARAÇLARININ KARBON AYAK İZİ ÜZERİNDEKİ ETKİSİ: PANEL VERİ ANALİZİ”. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi 27 (4): 1316-43. https://doi.org/10.37880/cumuiibf.1944621.

EndNote

Erdem A (October 1, 2026) OECD ÜLKELERİNDE MALİYE POLİTİKASI ARAÇLARININ KARBON AYAK İZİ ÜZERİNDEKİ ETKİSİ: PANEL VERİ ANALİZİ. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi 27 4 1316–1343.

IEEE

[1]A. Erdem, “OECD ÜLKELERİNDE MALİYE POLİTİKASI ARAÇLARININ KARBON AYAK İZİ ÜZERİNDEKİ ETKİSİ: PANEL VERİ ANALİZİ”, Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 1316–1343, Oct. 2026, doi: 10.37880/cumuiibf.1944621.

ISNAD

Erdem, Azad. “OECD ÜLKELERİNDE MALİYE POLİTİKASI ARAÇLARININ KARBON AYAK İZİ ÜZERİNDEKİ ETKİSİ: PANEL VERİ ANALİZİ”. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi 27/4 (October 1, 2026): 1316-1343. https://doi.org/10.37880/cumuiibf.1944621.

JAMA

1.Erdem A. OECD ÜLKELERİNDE MALİYE POLİTİKASI ARAÇLARININ KARBON AYAK İZİ ÜZERİNDEKİ ETKİSİ: PANEL VERİ ANALİZİ. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi. 2026;27:1316–1343.

MLA

Erdem, Azad. “OECD ÜLKELERİNDE MALİYE POLİTİKASI ARAÇLARININ KARBON AYAK İZİ ÜZERİNDEKİ ETKİSİ: PANEL VERİ ANALİZİ”. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, vol. 27, no. 4, Oct. 2026, pp. 1316-43, doi:10.37880/cumuiibf.1944621.

Vancouver

1.Azad Erdem. OECD ÜLKELERİNDE MALİYE POLİTİKASI ARAÇLARININ KARBON AYAK İZİ ÜZERİNDEKİ ETKİSİ: PANEL VERİ ANALİZİ. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi. 2026 Oct. 1;27(4):1316-43. doi:10.37880/cumuiibf.1944621