Environmental quality and health expenditures efficiency in Türkiye: the role of natural resources

Abstract

The environmental pollution caused by climate change and global warming pose significant risks to health. This raises the question how environmental disturbances can affect health expenditures. Based on this, this study examines the asymmetric effect of environmental quality on health expenditures in Türkiye using the non-linear ARDL (NARDL) model for the 1975–2019 period. In addition to environmental quality, natural resources, economic growth, and trade openness variables are also included in the health expenditure model. The findings support the existence of an asymmetric cointegration relationship between the series. The findings also indicate that positive environmental pollution shocks affect health expenditures positively in the long run, while negative environmental pollution shocks do not have a statistically significant effect on health expenditures. Positive and negative natural resource shocks affect health expenditures negatively in the long run. Despite the effect of positive economic growth shocks on health expenditures is positive but statistically insignificant, the effect of negative economic growth shocks is positive and significant. Besides, positive trade openness shocks have a negative effect on health expenditures and negative trade openness shocks have a positive effect. The findings prove that the steps to be taken to protect the environment in the current period will increase the effectiveness of health expenditures in the future. This situation has a guiding feature for policy-makers in terms of policy decisions.

Heterogeneous effects of urbanization and environment Kuznets curve hypothesis in Africa

“…The burning of fossil fuels causes environmental deterioration. Existing studies well characterize CO 2 emissions in diverse areas (Koengkan et al, 2019) for Latin America (Sattar et al, 2022), for Belt and Road countries (Demir et al, 2022) for Turkey, and Magazzino (2016) for Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan. As a result, the African Union should prioritize this issue to minimize CO 2 emissions.…”

“…Therefore, Cetin et al (2015) concluded that policy makers should not only focus on economic growth but also need to focus on trade openness to improve the environment. Demir et al (2022) confirmed that environmental depletion shocks also impact health expenses positively but are statistically insignificant. However, in terms of growth of the economy, the shock is positive and significant.…”

“…The environment theory can be defined as an inverted U‐shaped EKC. Many researchers used this approach for different areas with different variables to check the efficacy of growth and the environment (Çetin & Saygin, 2019; Demir et al, 2022). Rahman et al (2015) found a negative linkage among nonrenewable energy consumption and income growth.…”

How renewable energy and service growth influence environmental quality: Evidence from a sustainable development perspective

“…The selected top 10 service countries did not invest enough in innovative and clean technologies that employ the renewable energy resources for production. Indeed, renewable energy efficiency may mitigate pollution levels to protect environmental quality as well as human health (Demir et al, 2022). The findings of Al‐Mulali et al (2015b) confirm our outcome.…”

The nexus between eco‐friendly technology and environmental degradation in India: Does the N or inverted N‐shape load capacity curve(LCC) hypothesis hold?

“…A serious concern about human well‐being, development and even survival has been posed by the unhealthy outcomes emanating from the regular changes in global climate conditions (Çetin et al, 2022; Demir et al, 2022; Magazzino et al, 2023). At this juncture, it is believed that the countries (companies) at the macro‐level (micro‐level) often neglect the environmental, humanitarian, and social aspects of development in the pursuit of economic development (Villanthenkodath & Mahalik, 2022a).…”