An empirical evaluation about the effects of environmental expenditures on environmental quality in coordinated market economies

  • Aykut BasogluEmail author
  • Umut Uzar
Research Article


Acceleration of environmental degradation in recent years highlights the environmental quality as an indication of welfare and increases the number of studies conducted within this framework. Also, economic decision-making units have been doing various spending in order to maintain/increase environmental quality. In this context, the aim of this study is to examine the effect of environmental expenditures made by public sector on ecological deficit as a representative of the environmental quality for 9 coordinated market economies in Europe from 1995 to 2014. According to the findings acquired in the research, a cointegration relationship has been found between variables. It has been detected within the frame of panel ARDL analysis that total public expenditures increase the ecological deficit while environmental expenditures decrease it. In other words, scale effect of public expenditures affects the environmental quality negatively but its composition effect which will take place in favour of environmental expenditures has a positive effect. Thus, instead of the size of public expenditures, focusing on how the content of public expenditures of policy makers is formed in a way highlighting the environmental expenditures can boost welfare over environmental quality.


Environmental quality Environmental expenditures Ecological footprint Ecological deficit Coordinated market economies Panel data analysis 



  1. Asongu S, Montasser GE, Toumi H (2016) Testing the relationships between energy consumption, CO2 emissions, and economic growth in 24 African countries: a panel ARDL approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res 2(37):6563–6573. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Attiaoui I, Toumi H, Ammouri B, Gargouri I (2017) Causality links among renewable energy consumption, CO2 emissions, and economic growth in Africa: evidence from a panel ARDL-PMG approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24(14):13036–13048. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baltagi BH, Feng Q, Kao C (2012) A Lagrange Multiplier test for cross-sectional dependence in a fixed effects panel data model. J Econ 170:164–177. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barra C, Zotti R (2018) Investigating the non-linearity between national income and environmental pollution: international evidence of Kuznets curve. Environ Econ Policy Stud 20:179–210. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beeson M (2010) The coming of environmental authoritarianism. Environ Politics 19(2):276–294. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bernauer T, Koubi V (2006) States as providers of public goods: how does government size affect environmental quality? Working Paper Center for Comparative and International Studies Zurich. Accessed 24 April 2018
  7. Bildirici M, Kayikçi F (2013) Effects of oil production on economic growth in Eurasian countries: panel ARDL approach. Energy 49:156–161. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Breusch TS, Pagan AR (1980) The Lagrange multiplier test and its application to model specification in econometrics. Rev Econ Stud 47:239–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. CEPA (2000), Classification of environmental protection activities and expenditure, RAMON reference and management of nomenclatures. Accessed 30 May 2018
  10. Dumitrescu EI, Hurlin C (2012) Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Econ Model 29(4):1450–1460. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. European Environmental Agency (2016) Environmental protection expenditure. Accessed 30 May 2018
  12. Forsyth T (2008) Political ecology and the epistemology of social justice. Geoforum 39(2):756–764. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Galinato GI, Galinato SP (2016) The effects of government spending on deforestation due to agricultural land expansion and CO2 related emissions. Ecol Econ 122:43–53. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gholipour HF, Farzanega MH (2018) Institutions and the effectiveness of expenditures on environmental protection: evidence from Middle Eastern countries. Constit Polit Econ 29:20–39. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grossman G, Krueger A (1995) Economic growth and the environment. Q J Econ 110:353–377. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haklos GE, Paizanos EA (2013) The effect of government expenditure on the environment: an empirical investigation. Ecol Econ 91:48–56. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hall PA, Soskice D (2004) An introduction to varieties of capitalism. In P.A. Hall and D. Soskice (Ed.). Varieties of capitalism: the institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford University Press, pp 1–68Google Scholar
  18. Hausman JA (1978) Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica 46(6):1251–1271. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. He L, Wu M, Wang D, Zhong Z (2018) A study of the influence of regional environmental expenditure on air quality in China: the effectiveness of environmental policy. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25(8):7454–7468. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Im KS, Pesaran MH, Shin Y (2003) Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. J Econ 115:53–74. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Islam AM, Lopez RE (2015) Government spending and air pollution in the US. Int Rev Environ Resour Econ 8(2):139–189. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Krajewski P (2016) The impact of public environmental protection expenditure on economic growth. Problemy Ekorozwoju–Probl Sustain Dev 11(2):99–104Google Scholar
  23. Kuznets S (1955) Economic growth and income inequality. Am Econ Rev 45(1):1–28Google Scholar
  24. Levin A, Lin C-F, Chu CJ (2002) Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic and finite-sample properties. J Econ 108(1):1–24. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lin Q, Chen C, Du W, Niu H (2012) Spillover effect of environmental investment: evidence from panel data at provincial level in China. Front Environ Sci Eng 6(3):412–420. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lopez R, Palacios A (2014) Why has Europe become environmentally cleaner? Decomposing the roles of fiscal, trade and environmental policies. Environ Resour Econ 58(1):91–108. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lopez R, Galinato GI, Islam A (2011) Fiscal spending and the environment: theory and empirics. J Environ Econ Manag 62(2):180–198. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mert M, Boluk G (2016) Do foreign direct investment and renewable energy consumption affect the CO2 emissions? New evidence from a panel ARDL approach to Kyoto annex countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23(21):21669–21681. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mesjasz-Lech A (2017) Environmental protection expenditures and effects of environmental governance of sustainable development in manufacture enterprise. Management, enterprise and benchmarking in the 21st century Budapest: 244–257. 244-257. Accessed 26 April 2018
  30. Moore D (2011) Ecological footprint analysis San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, Ca metropolitan statistical area. A global footprint network report. . Accessed 10 April 2018
  31. Pedroni P (1999) Critical values for cointegration tests in heterogeneous panels with multiple regressors. Oxf Bull Econ Stat 61(1):653–670. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pedroni P (2000) Fully modified OLS for heterogeneous cointegrated panels. In Badi H. Baltagi (Ed.). Nonstationary panels, panel cointegration and dynamic panels, Adv Econ 15, pp 93–130Google Scholar
  33. Persyn D, Westerlund J (2008) Error-correction-based cointegration tests for panel data. Stata J 8(2):232–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pesaran MH (2004) General diagnostic tests for cross-section dependence in panels. Camb Work Pap in Econ (CWPE).
  35. Pesaran MH (2007) A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. J Appl Econ 22(2):265–312. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pesaran MH, Yamagata T (2008) Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. J Econ 142(1):50–93. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pesaran MH, Shin Y, Smith RP (1999) Pooled mean group estimation of dynamic heterogeneous panels. Journal Am Stat Assoc 94(446):621–634. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Steinbach N (2006) Environmental protection expenditure and environmental industry in the EU-two sides of one coin. Accessed 01 June 2018
  39. UNEP (2009) Global green new deal: policy brief. handle/20.500.11822/7903. Accessed 14 March 2018
  40. Westerlund J (2007) Testing for error correction in panel data. Oxf Bull Econ Stat 69(6):709–748. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zhu H, Xia H, Guo Y, Peng C (2018) The heterogeneous effects of urbanization and income inequality on CO2 emissions in BRICS economies: evidence from panel quantile regression. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25(17):17176–17193. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Department of EconomicsKaradeniz Technical UniversityTrabzonTurkey

Personalised recommendations