| Literature DB >> 36166119 |
Selin Demir1, Harun Demir2, Caglar Karaduman3, Murat Cetin4.
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.Entities:
Keywords: Environmental quality; Health expenditures; NARDL; Natural resources; Türkiye
Year: 2022 PMID: 36166119 PMCID: PMC9512999 DOI: 10.1007/s11356-022-23187-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Sci Pollut Res Int ISSN: 0944-1344 Impact factor: 5.190
Description of series
| Symbol | Variable | Description | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| HE | Health expenditure | Total health spending (% of GDP) | OECD |
| CO2 | CO2 emissions | CO2 emissions (per capita/tons) | OECD |
| NR | Natural resources | Total natural resources rents (% of GDP) | WDI |
| GDP | Economic growth | GDP per capita (constant 2010 US$) | WDI |
| TRD | Trade openness | Trade (% of GDP) | WDI |
Descriptive statistics and correlations
| Panel A: descriptive statistics | |||||
| Mean | 1.167 | − 0.798 | 8.991 | 0.980 | 3.588 |
| Median | 1.117 | − 0.889 | 8.953 | 1.029 | 3.746 |
| Maximum | 1.703 | 0.299 | 9.628 | 1.547 | 4.138 |
| Minimum | 0.398 | − 1.967 | 8.510 | 0.405 | 2.208 |
| Std. dev | 0.387 | 0.592 | 0.349 | 0.345 | 0.461 |
| Skewness | − 0.167 | 0.071 | 0.349 | − 0.095 | − 1.333 |
| Kurtosis | 1.567 | 2.055 | 1.938 | 1.776 | 4.076 |
| Observations | 45 | 45 | 45 | 45 | 45 |
| Panel B: correlations matrix | |||||
| 1 | |||||
| − 0.683 | 1 | ||||
| 0.799 | − 0.640 | 1 | |||
| 0.846 | − 0.710 | 0.980 | 1 | ||
| 0.685 | − 0.646 | 0.791 | 0.852 | 1 | |
Unit root test results
| Variables | ADF | PP | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constant | Constant and trend | Constant | Constant and trend | |
| Level | ||||
| − 1.020(0) | − 1.595(0) | − 1.067(4) | − 1.868(4) | |
| − 1.619(0) | − 1.917(0) | − 1.614(4) | − 2.023(2) | |
| 0.520(0) | − 2.290(0) | 0.586(3) | − 2.327(2) | |
| − 0.742(0) | − 3.715(0)** | − 0.746(12) | − 3.733(1)** | |
| − 1.555(0) | − 2.647(1) | − 1.453(6) | − 2.283(3) | |
| First difference | ||||
| − 7.075(0)*** | − 7.112(0)*** | − 7.007(4)*** | − 7.029(4)*** | |
| − 6.256(0)*** | − 6.201(0)*** | − 6.286(7)*** | − 6.230(7)*** | |
| − 6.484(0)*** | − 6.691(0)*** | − 6.484(0)*** | − 6.705(3)*** | |
| − 8.096(0)*** | − 7.998(0)*** | − 11.088(10)*** | − 10.952(10)*** | |
| − 4.970(1)*** | − 5.011(1)*** | − 5.751(8)*** | − 6.321(10)*** | |
The optimal lag lengths in the ADF test are determined automatically using SIC. In the PP test, Newey and West (1994) method is used to determine the bandwidth. Values in parentheses represent the appropriate lag. ***, **, and * indicate significance at 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively
Narayan-Popp unit root test
| Variables | M1 (Model 1): level | M2 (Model 2): level and slope | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TB1 | TB2 | TB1 | TB2 | |||
| Level | ||||||
| − 2.549(0) | 1984 | 1998 | − 2.063(0) | 1985 | 1998 | |
| − 2.701(0) | 1997 | 2007 | − 3.219(0) | 1997 | 2008 | |
| − 4.134(0) | 1993 | 2000 | − 3.783(0) | 2000 | 2008 | |
| − 4.495(0)* | 1986 | 2000 | − 3.314(0) | 1987 | 2000 | |
| − 2.564(1) | 1983 | 1997 | − 7.647(1)*** | 1985 | 1993 | |
| First difference | ||||||
| − 10.21(0)*** | 1984 | 1998 | − 5.705(0)** | 1985 | 1995 | |
| − 6.811(0)*** | 1997 | 2008 | − 6.681(0)*** | 1997 | 2008 | |
| − 7.401(0)*** | 2000 | 2008 | − 7.167(0)*** | 2000 | 2008 | |
| − 7.153(0)*** | 1987 | 2000 | − 8.015(0)*** | 1987 | 2000 | |
| − 5.836(0)*** | 1985 | 1997 | − 6.838(2)*** | 1984 | 1997 | |
Values in parentheses represent the optimal lag. M1 critical table values are as − 5.259, − 4.514, and − 4.143 at 1%, 5% and 10% significance levels, respectively. M2 critical table values are as − 5.949, − 5.181, and − 4.789 at 1%, 5% and 10% significance levels, respectively. ***, **, and * indicate significance at 1%, 5% and 10% levels, respectively
BDS non-linearity test results
| Variables | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.166*** | 0.287*** | 0.360*** | 0.405*** | 0.433*** | |
| 0.129*** | 0.215*** | 0.248*** | 0.254*** | 0.248*** | |
| 0.177*** | 0.287*** | 0.356*** | 0.401*** | 0.431*** | |
| 0.179*** | 0.304*** | 0.391*** | 0.452*** | 0.502*** | |
| 0.182*** | 0.308*** | 0.399*** | 0.472*** | 0.522*** |
The findings show the BDS test based on residual values of all series within VAR, with m dimension. *** indicates rejection of the null hypothesis of residuals iid at 1%
NARDL cointegration results
| Model: lnHE/(lnNR+, lnNR−, lnGDP+, lnGDP−, lnCO2+, lnCO2−, lnTRD+, lnTRD−) | ||
|---|---|---|
| FPSS | 10.284*** | Cointegrated |
| tBDM | − 5.706*** | Cointegrated |
FPSS and tBDM show the statistic of the Pesaran et al. (2001) bounds test and the statistic of Banerjee et al. (1998), respectively. *** indicates significance at 1% level
NARDL model short-run and long-run results
| Panel A: short-run coefficients | |||
| Coef | Prob | ||
| − 1.797*** | − 5.71 | 0.000 | |
| − 0.584*** | − 5.86 | 0.000 | |
| 0.476*** | 3.85 | 0.002 | |
| 0.042 | 0.08 | 0.939 | |
| − 4.823*** | − 3.64 | 0.003 | |
| 2.287*** | 4.50 | 0.001 | |
| − 0.166 | − 0.21 | 0.838 | |
| − 0.581*** | − 4.36 | 0.001 | |
| − 1.299*** | − 4.33 | 0.001 | |
| 0.399* | 2.06 | 0.059 | |
| − 0.088 | − 0.60 | 0.561 | |
| 0.207 | 1.30 | 0.216 | |
| 0.197 | 1.40 | 0.184 | |
| − 0.084 | − 0.75 | 0.468 | |
| 0.279 | 0.48 | 0.642 | |
| − 0.048 | − 0.10 | 0.925 | |
| − 4.415*** | − 3.05 | 0.009 | |
| 0.558 | 0.59 | 0.565 | |
| − 0.041 | − 0.07 | 0.944 | |
| − 1.150* | − 2.14 | 0.051 | |
| 0.951 | 1.16 | 0.266 | |
| 0.462 | 0.58 | 0.569 | |
| − 0.986*** | − 4.31 | 0.001 | |
| − 0.276 | − 1.66 | 0.119 | |
| 0.756** | 2.39 | 0.032 | |
| 1.288*** | 3.19 | 0.007 | |
| − 0.398*** | − 5.64 | 0.000 | |
| 0.574*** | 3.43 | 0.004 | |
| Constant | 1.227*** | 4.57 | 0.000 |
| Panel B: long-run coefficients | |||
| Coef | Prob | ||
| − 0.325*** | 61.99 | 0.000 | |
| − 0.265*** | 31.78 | 0.000 | |
| 0.024 | 0.006 | 0.939 | |
| 2.683*** | 29.03 | 0.000 | |
| 1.272*** | 21.5 | 0.000 | |
| 0.092 | 0.043 | 0.838 | |
| − 0.324*** | 42.98 | 0.000 | |
| 0.723*** | 35.22 | 0.000 | |
D1985 and D1998 represent structural breaks. ***, **, and * indicate significance at 1%, 5% and 10% levels, respectively
NARDL model short-run and long-run asymmetry
| Prob | ||
|---|---|---|
| Long-run | ||
| 73.14*** | 0.000 | |
| 20.6*** | 0.000 | |
| 8.034** | 0.013 | |
| 14.62*** | 0.002 | |
| Short-run | ||
| 0.0001 | 0.991 | |
| 3.34* | 0.089 | |
| 1.754 | 0.207 | |
| 14.34*** | 0.002 |
***, **, and * indicate significance at 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively
NARDL model sensitivity analysis
| Diagnostics | ||
|---|---|---|
| 0.922 | ||
| Adj. | 0.767 | |
| Stat | ||
| Portmanteau test up to lag 19 (chi2) | 25.25 | 0.152 |
| Breusch/Pagan heteroskedasticity test (chi2) | 0.057 | 0.810 |
| Ramsey RESET test ( | 1.076 | 0.399 |
| Jarque–Bera test on normality (chi2) | 1.192 | 0.550 |
Fig. 1Dynamic multipliers