دوره 1، شماره 2 - ( پاییز و زمستان 1402 1402 )
جلد 1 شماره 2 صفحات 12-1 |
برگشت به فهرست نسخه ها
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Saeidi Javadi H, Fahimifard S M. (2024). Studying the Effect of Democracy Depth on Economic Growth- Environment Nexus (Iran and South Korea Comparison). Ame. 1(2), 1-12. doi:10.61186/ame.1.2.1
URL: http://ame.sanru.ac.ir/article-1-56-fa.html
URL: http://ame.sanru.ac.ir/article-1-56-fa.html
سعیدی جوادی حمید، فهیمی فرد سید محمد. بررسی تأثیر عمق دموکراسی بر رابطه رشد اقتصادی و محیطزیست (مقایسه ایران و کرهجنوبی) اقتصاد و بازار کشاورزی 1402; 1 (2) :12-1 10.61186/ame.1.2.1
گروه علوم سیاسی، دانشکده حقوق، علوم سیاسی و زبانهای خارجی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد مشهد، مشهد، ایران
چکیده: (333 مشاهده)
مقدمه و هدف: با توجه به دیدگاه‌‌های متفاوت در خصوص تأثیر عمق دموکراسی بر محیطزیست، در پژوهش حاضر یک مطالعه تطبیقی بین ایران و کرهجنوبی در خصوص چگونگی اثرگذاری عمق دموکراسی بر رابطه میان رشد اقتصادی و انتشار گازهای گلخانه‌‌ای انجام شد.
مواد و روش‌‌ها: جهت دستیابی به اهداف تحقیق، داده‌‌های مورد نیاز طی دوره 2021-1981 از بانک جهانی گردآوری شده و جهت تجزیه‌‌وتحلیل داده‌‌ها از مدل خودرگرسیون با وقفه‌‌های توزیعی (ARDL) استفاده شد.
یافته‌‌ها: نتایج پژوهش نشان داد که عمق دموکراسی، نرخ رشد تولید ناخالص داخلی و نیروی کار در کشور کره جنوبی بیش از ایران و میزان انتشار گازهای گلخانه‌‌ای و تشکیل سرمایه ثابت در ایران بیش از کره جنوبی می‌‌باشد. علاوه براین، در بلندمدت عمق دموکراسی تأثیر معکوس و تولید ناخالص داخلی، نسبت تشکیل سرمایه به تولید ناخالص داخلی و نیروی کار تأثیر مستقیمی بر انتشار گازهای گلخانه‌‌ای در هر دو کشور دارند. همچنین، عمق دموکراسی در بلندمدت از اثر مستقیم تولید ناخالص داخلی بر میزان انتشار گازهای گلخانه‌‌ای هر دو کشور می‌‌کاهد.
نتیجه‌‌گیری: افزایش عمق دموکراسی موجب کاهش میزان انتشار گازهای گلخانه‌‌ای شده و از آثار مستقیم رشد اقتصادی بر انتشار گازهای گلخانه‌‌ای می‌‌کاهد. از این‌‌رو، به مسئولین کشور به‌‌ویژه وزارت کشور پیشنهاد می‌‌شود، زمینه شکل‌‌گیری و رشد سازمان‌‌های مردم نهاد بویژه در حوزه محیطزیست را فراهم آورند.
مواد و روش‌‌ها: جهت دستیابی به اهداف تحقیق، داده‌‌های مورد نیاز طی دوره 2021-1981 از بانک جهانی گردآوری شده و جهت تجزیه‌‌وتحلیل داده‌‌ها از مدل خودرگرسیون با وقفه‌‌های توزیعی (ARDL) استفاده شد.
یافته‌‌ها: نتایج پژوهش نشان داد که عمق دموکراسی، نرخ رشد تولید ناخالص داخلی و نیروی کار در کشور کره جنوبی بیش از ایران و میزان انتشار گازهای گلخانه‌‌ای و تشکیل سرمایه ثابت در ایران بیش از کره جنوبی می‌‌باشد. علاوه براین، در بلندمدت عمق دموکراسی تأثیر معکوس و تولید ناخالص داخلی، نسبت تشکیل سرمایه به تولید ناخالص داخلی و نیروی کار تأثیر مستقیمی بر انتشار گازهای گلخانه‌‌ای در هر دو کشور دارند. همچنین، عمق دموکراسی در بلندمدت از اثر مستقیم تولید ناخالص داخلی بر میزان انتشار گازهای گلخانه‌‌ای هر دو کشور می‌‌کاهد.
نتیجه‌‌گیری: افزایش عمق دموکراسی موجب کاهش میزان انتشار گازهای گلخانه‌‌ای شده و از آثار مستقیم رشد اقتصادی بر انتشار گازهای گلخانه‌‌ای می‌‌کاهد. از این‌‌رو، به مسئولین کشور به‌‌ویژه وزارت کشور پیشنهاد می‌‌شود، زمینه شکل‌‌گیری و رشد سازمان‌‌های مردم نهاد بویژه در حوزه محیطزیست را فراهم آورند.
نوع مطالعه: پژوهشي |
موضوع مقاله:
بازارهای فرضی و محیط زیست
دریافت: 1402/9/21 | پذیرش: 1402/10/27 | انتشار: 1402/12/20
دریافت: 1402/9/21 | پذیرش: 1402/10/27 | انتشار: 1402/12/20
فهرست منابع
1. Abdollahi, M. (2012). Effective factors on environment pollution whit emphasize on institutions quality (case of OIC members), Semnan University, M.Sc. Dissertation (in Persian).
2. Agheli, L., Sadeghi, H. and Esvar, A. (2014). Impact of democracy on CO2 emissions. Quarterly Journal of Quantitative Economics, 11(2), 21-40 (in Persian).
3. Acemoglu, D., Naidu, S., Restrepo, P. and Robinson, J. A. (2019). Democracy does cause growth. Journal of political economy, 127(1), 47-100. [DOI:10.1086/700936]
4. Agbede, E. A., Bani, Y., Naseem, N. A. M. and Saini, W. N. W. (2023). The impact of democracy and income on CO2 emissions in MINT countries: evidence from quantile regression model, Environmental Science and Pollution Research,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-25805-z [DOI:10.1007/s11356-023-25805-z.]
5. Alizade, S. and Bayat, M. (2016). The Effect of Good Governance on the Environment in Middle-Income Countries. Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 18(3), 501-513 (in Persian).
6. Arabmazar Yazdi, A., Ghasemi, A. and Rashidikia, M. (2017). Effects of Corruption and Political Instability on Environmental Performance; a Case Study of Selected Countries in the Middle East', Environmental Researches, 8(15), 77-86 (in Persian).
7. Bernard, S L. and Winer. S. (2009). Is Democracy Good for the Environment? The Role of Private Mitigation Efforts. Canada Research Chair Program, Nov, 2009.
8. Clulow, Z. (2019). Democracy, electoral systems and emissions: explaining when and why democratization promotes mitigation. Climate Policy, 19(2), 244-257. [DOI:10.1080/14693062.2018.1497938]
9. Escher, R. and Walter-Rogg, M. (2018). Does the conceptualization and measurement of democracy quality matter in comparative climate policy research?. Politics and Governance, 6(1), 117-144. [DOI:10.17645/pag.v6i1.1187]
10. Fischer, F. (2017). Climate crisis and the democratic prospect: participatory governance in sustainable communities. Oxford University Press. [DOI:10.1093/oso/9780199594917.001.0001]
11. Fredriksson, G. and Neumayer, E. (2013). Analysis Democracy and Climate Change Policies: Is History Important? Ecological Economic, 95, 11-19. [DOI:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.08.002]
12. Glass, L. M. and Newig, J. (2019). Governance for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals: How important are participation, policy coherence, reflexivity, adaptation and democratic institutions?, Earth System Governance, 2, 100031. [DOI:10.1016/j.esg.2019.100031]
13. Goel, R., Herrela, R. and Mazar. U. (2013). Institutional Quality and Environment Pollution: Mena Countries versus the Rest of the World. Economic Systems, 37, 508-521. [DOI:10.1016/j.ecosys.2013.04.002]
14. Harati, J., Taghizadeh, H. and Amini, T. (2016). Investigating the Impacts of Trade and Political Variables on Environmental Performance Index:A Dynaminc Panel Analysis, The Journal of Economic Policy, 7(14), 129-157 (in Persian).
15. Heidari, H., Alinezhad, R. and Jahangirzadeh, J. (2014). An Investigation of Democracy and Economic Growth Nexus: A Case Study for D-8 Countries', Economic Growth and Development Research, 4(15), 60-41 (in Persian).
16. Javaheri, B., Shahveisi, H., & Mohammadi, S. (2023). Investigating the Effect of Human Development, Political Development and Civil Liberties Indicators on Environmental Quality. Quarterly Journal of Economic Research, 23(2): 1-25 (in Persian).
17. Joshi, P. and Beck, K. (2018). Democracy and carbon dioxide emissions: assessing the interactions of political and economic freedom and the environmental Kuznets curve. Energy Research & Social Science, 39, 46-54. [DOI:10.1016/j.erss.2017.10.020]
18. Kazerooni, A., Asgharpur, H. and Nafisi Moghadam, M. (2020). The Effect of Political Stability and Democracy on Economic Growth in Selected Countries of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation: Dynamic Panel Approach (SYS-GMM), Economic Growth and Development Research, 10(39), 55-74 (in Persian).
19. Lægreid, O. M. and Povitkina, M. (2018). Do political institutions moderate the GDP-CO2 relationship?. Ecological economics, 145, 441-450. [DOI:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.11.014]
20. Muttakin, M. B., Rana, T. and Mihret, D. G. (2022). Democracy, national culture and greenhouse gas emissions: An international study, Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(7), 2978-2991. [DOI:10.1002/bse.3059]
21. Nadiri, M. and Mohammadi, T. (2011). Estimating an Institutional Structure in Economic Growth Using GMM Dynamic Panel Data Method, Economic Modelling, 5(15), 1-24 (in Persian).
22. Pesaran, M.H., Shin, Y. and Smith, R. J. (2001). Bounds Testing Approaches to the Analysis of Level Relationship, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16, 289-326. [DOI:10.1002/jae.616]
23. Pickering, J., Bäckstrand, K. and Schlosberg, D. (2020). Between environmental and ecological democracy: Theory and practice at the democracy-environment nexus. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 22(1), 1-15. [DOI:10.1080/1523908X.2020.1703276]
24. Qureshi, M. and Ahmed, E. (2012). The Interlinkages between Democracy and Per Capita GDP Growth: A Cross Country Analysis. PIDE Working Papers, No 85.
25. Ren, Y., Liu, L., Zhu, H. and Tang, R. (2020). The direct and indirect effects of democracy on carbon dioxide emissions in BRICS countries: evidence from panel quantile regression. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int, 27(26), 33085-33102. [DOI:10.1007/s11356-020-09167-4]
26. Sharma, S. D. (2007). Democracy, Good Governance, and Economic Development, Taiwan Journal of Democracy, 3(1), 29-62.
27. Siegal, J., Weinstein, M. and Halperin, M. (2004). Why Democracy Excel. Foreign Affairs, 83, 57-71. [DOI:10.2307/20034067]
28. Tamazian, A. and Rao, B. B. (2010). Do Economic, Financial and Developments Matter for Environmental Degradation? Evidence from Transitional Economies, Energy Economics, 32, 137-145. [DOI:10.1016/j.eneco.2009.04.004]
29. Tashkini, A. (2006). Econometrics Using Microfit, 1st edition, Dibagaran Tehran Publishing (In Persian).
30. Torbjørn, S., Kristin, L. and Erling, H. (2022). Unpacking democracy: The effects of different democratic qualities on climate change performance over time, Environmental Science & Policy, 128, 326-335. [DOI:10.1016/j.envsci.2021.12.009]
31. Willis, R., Curato, N. and Smith, G. (2022). Deliberative democracy and the climate crisis, Climate change, 13(2). [DOI:10.1002/wcc.759]
32. Zeraibi, A., Jahangir, A., Ramzan, M., & Adetayo, T. S. (2023). Investigating the effects of natural gas, nuclear energy, and democracy on environmental footprint and energy risk in France: Does financial inclusion matter?. Progress in Nuclear Energy, 159, 104621. [DOI:10.1016/j.pnucene.2023.104621]
33. Zhike, L. (2017). The effect of democracy on CO2 emissions in emerging countries: Does the level of income matter?, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 77, 900-906. [DOI:10.1016/j.rser.2017.01.096]
34. Zhou, L., Mantu, K., Mahalik, H. and Mallick, R. Z. (2022). The moderating effects of democracy and technology adoption on the relationship between trade liberalization and carbon emissions, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80, 121712. [DOI:10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121712]
35. Zongrun, W., Haiqin, F. and Xiaohang, R. (2023). Political connections and corporate carbon emission: New evidence from Chinese industrial firms, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 188, 122326. [DOI:10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122326]
36. Abdollahi, M. (2012). Effective factors on environment pollution whit emphasize on institutions quality (Case of OIC members). Semnan University. M.Sc Dissertation (In Persian).
37. Agheli, L., Sadeghi, H. & Esvar, A. (2014). Impact of democracy on CO2 emissions. Quarterly Journal of Quantitative Economics, 11(2), 21-40. (In Persian).
38. Acemoglu, D., Naidu, S., Restrepo, P. & Robinson, J. A. (2019). Democracy does cause growth. Journal of Political Economy, 127(1), 47-100. [DOI:10.1086/700936]
39. Agbede, E. A., Bani, Y., Naseem, N. A. M. & Saini, W. N. W. (2023). The impact of democracy and income on CO2 emissions in MINT countries: Evidence from quantile regression model. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(18), 52762-52783.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-25805-z [DOI:10.1007/s11356-023-25805-z.]
40. Alizade, S., & Bayat, M. (2016). The effect of good governance on the environment in middle-income countries. Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 18(3), 501-513 (In Persian).
41. Arabmazar Yazdi, A., Ghasemi, A., & Rashidikia, M. (2017). Effects of corruption and political instability on environmental performance: A Case study of selected countries in the middle east'. Environmental Researches, 8(15), 77-86 (In Persian).
42. Bernard, S., Hotte, L., & Winer, S. L. (2009). Is democracy good for the environment? The role of private mitigation efforts. Canada Research Chair Program.
43. Clulow, Z. (2019). Democracy, electoral systems and emissions: Explaining when and why democratization promotes mitigation. Climate Policy, 19(2), 244-257. [DOI:10.1080/14693062.2018.1497938]
44. Escher, R., & Walter-Rogg, M. (2018). Does the conceptualization and measurement of democracy quality matter in comparative climate policy research? Politics and Governance, 6(1), 117-144. [DOI:10.17645/pag.v6i1.1187]
45. Fischer, F. (2017). Climate crisis and the democratic prospect: Participatory governance in sustainable communities. Oxford University Press. [DOI:10.1093/oso/9780199594917.001.0001]
46. Fredriksson, G., & Neumayer, E. (2013). Analysis democracy and climate change policies: Is history important? Ecological Economic, 95, 11-19. [DOI:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.08.002]
47. Glass, L. M., & Newig, J. (2019). Governance for achieving the sustainable development goals: How important are participation, policy coherence, reflexivity, adaptation and democratic institutions? Earth System Governance, 2, 100031. [DOI:10.1016/j.esg.2019.100031]
48. Goel, R., Herrela, R. & Mazar. U. (2013). Institutional quality and environment pollution: Mena countries versus the rest of the world. Economic Systems, 37, 508-521. [DOI:10.1016/j.ecosys.2013.04.002]
49. Harati, J., Taghizadeh, H. & Amini, T. (2016). Investigating the impacts of trade and political variables on environmental performance index: A dynaminc panel analysis. The Journal of Economic Policy, 7(14), 129-157 (In Persian).
50. Heidari, H., Alinezhad, R., & Jahangirzadeh, J. (2014). An investigation of democracy and economic growth nexus: A case study for D-8 countries. Economic Growth and Development Research, 4(15), 60-41 (In Persian).
51. Javaheri, B., Shahveisi, H., & Mohammadi, S. (2023). Investigating the effect of human development, political development and civil liberties indicators on environmental quality. Quarterly Journal of Economic Research, 23(2), 1-25 (In Persian).
52. Joshi, P., & Beck, K. (2018). Democracy and carbon dioxide emissions: Assessing the interactions of political and economic freedom and the environmental kuznets curve. Energy Research & Social Science, 39, 46-54. [DOI:10.1016/j.erss.2017.10.020]
53. Kazerooni, A., Asgharpur, H., & Nafisi Moghadam, M. (2020). The effect of political stability and democracy on economic growth in selected countries of the organization of islamic cooperation: Dynamic panel approach (SYS-GMM). Economic Growth and Development Research, 10(39), 55-74 (In Persian).
54. Lægreid, O. M., & Povitkina, M. (2018). Do political institutions moderate the GDP-CO2 relationship? Ecological Economics, 145, 441-450. [DOI:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.11.014]
55. Muttakin, M. B., Rana, T. & Mihret, D. G. (2022). Democracy, national culture and greenhouse gas emissions: An international study. Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(7), 2978-2991. [DOI:10.1002/bse.3059]
56. Nadiri, M., & Mohammadi, T. (2011). Estimating an institutional structure in economic growth using GMM dynamic panel data method. Economic Modelling, 5(15), 1-24 (In Persian).
57. Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y., & Smith, R. J. (2001). Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationship. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16, 289-326. [DOI:10.1002/jae.616]
58. Pickering, J., Bäckstrand, K., & Schlosberg, D. (2020). Between environmental and ecological democracy: Theory and practice at the democracy-environment nexus. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 22(1), 1-15. [DOI:10.1080/1523908X.2020.1703276]
59. Qureshi, M., & Ahmed, E. (2012). The Interlinkages Between Democracy and Per Capita GDP Growth: A Cross Country Analysis. PIDE Working Papers, No 85.
60. Ren, Y., Liu, L., Zhu, H. & Tang, R. (2020). The direct and indirect effects of democracy on carbon dioxide emissions in BRICS countries: Evidence from panel quantile regression. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(26), 33085-33102. [DOI:10.1007/s11356-020-09167-4]
61. Sharma, S. D. (2007). Democracy, good governance, and economic development. Taiwan Journal of Democracy, 3(1), 29-62.
62. Siegal, J., Weinstein, M., & Halperin, M. (2004). Why democracy excel. Foreign Affairs, 83, 57-71. [DOI:10.2307/20034067]
63. Tamazian, A., & Rao, B. B. (2010). Do economic, financial and developments matter for environmental degradation? Evidence from transitional economies. Energy Economics, 32, 137-145. [DOI:10.1016/j.eneco.2009.04.004]
64. Tashkini, A. (2006). Econometrics Using Microfit, 1st edition, Dibagaran Tehran Publishing (In Persian).
65. Torbjørn, S., Kristin, L. & Erling, H. (2022). Unpacking democracy: The effects of different democratic qualities on climate change performance over time. Environmental Science & Policy, 128, 326-335. [DOI:10.1016/j.envsci.2021.12.009]
66. Willis, R., Curato, N., & Smith, G. (2022). Deliberative democracy and the climate crisis, Climate change, 13(2). [DOI:10.1002/wcc.759]
67. Zeraibi, A., Jahangir, A., Ramzan, M., & Adetayo, T. S. (2023). Investigating the effects of natural gas, nuclear energy, and democracy on environmental footprint and energy risk in France: Does financial inclusion matter? Progress in Nuclear Energy, 159, 104621. [DOI:10.1016/j.pnucene.2023.104621]
68. Zhike, L. (2017). The effect of democracy on CO2 emissions in emerging countries: Does the level of income matter? Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 77, 900-906. [DOI:10.1016/j.rser.2017.01.096]
69. Zhou, L., Mantu, K., Mahalik, H., & Mallick, R. Z. (2022). The moderating effects of democracy and technology adoption on the relationship between trade liberalization and carbon emissions. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80, 121712. [DOI:10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121712]
70. Zongrun, W., Haiqin, F., & Xiaohang, R. (2023). Political connections and corporate carbon emission: New evidence from Chinese industrial firms. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 188, 122326. [DOI:10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122326]
ارسال پیام به نویسنده مسئول
| بازنشر اطلاعات | |
 |
این مقاله تحت شرایط Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License قابل بازنشر است. |
