Çevre programlarının ekonomik açıdan değerlendirilmesi ve Türkiye için bir model denemesi

Abstract

.297 EVALUATION OF ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS and INITIAL STUDY for TURKEY (ENGLISH SUMMARY) In last half-century, especially after the world war, environmental pollution accompained with growth and industrialization has been grouting at an enormously high rate and increasingly threatening the life and existence of the human race. Nobody longer thinks that most environmental problems can be solved by passing a law or exhorting people behave better. But one who doesn't have enough insight into matter asserts that the problems is wholly technical and that the solution requires that all polluters employ the best available technology. This view, appropiately called engineering approach, is. defended as a straightforward approach that obtains the most reasonable or feasible protection. This strategy is neither reasonable nor feasible. Firstly; there is no absolutely best technology. Technological choices depends on the relative prices and so resource allocation. Any technology deemed best in any price set will be unsuitable in another. Secondly; feasibility of a technology depends on its results in a cost-benefit comparison must throughly take into consideration consumer preferences and resoruerce scarcity. So there is no pure technical solution and succes of an engineering application depends on the existence of a policy framework in which relative price and resource allocations problems are solved according to perceived economic policy..298 So long as environment is not free. good, in contrast to the old textbooks, the pollution problem has an economic dimension that constitutes the basis and framework for all control policies. This is not only because pollution a consequence of economic activities (consumption and production) but rather because can have a better environment only by giving up significant amounts of other goods; that is to say, there is a trade-off between environment and other goods. However even in this cotext, there are different viewpoints for solving the problem. The first part of the study devoted to these debates. Neo-classical attention has been focused on efficiency of resource allocation in uihich environmental quality traded off other goods. According to neo-classics, or in other words environmental economists, pollution is an externality that is crated by production (or consumption) processes and for reaching efficiency in Pareto sense, this externality must be internalized. All neo-classics are otherwise like-minded on this approach but in the policy prescriptions. For internalizing the externalities, cardinalist- normative Pigouvian tradition proposes taxes on pollution (effluent charges). Dn the contrary, the ordlnalist- positlve ortodoxy of which Coase is the most famous and preeminent representative, opposes public intervation and purposes to establish property rights to environment in a suitable form so that a positive price is arrived at and then agents will get together and negotiate their way to efficiency. So externality mill be internalized and society will arrive at Pareto optimality without any public intervention..299 1 Neo-classic theory deals with only repairing the externalities. But the problem and arguments are much broader. Radical environmentalist-economists, or in another saying ecologists, assert that tradiatianal economic theory is not well equipped to cope with the problem. According to the ecologist view neoclassical- Keynesian synthesis of grauth-oriented economic theory turns only toward producing as much as possible and augmenting commodities without regarding what they contribute to the quality of life. However the more the production and augmentation of commodities 'rise the more the environment is impaired. Cosequently, the radical view defends the unique remedy to avoid 'global environmental catastrophe1 is to stop growth. But no feasible policy proposal to realize the zero-growth has appeared. On account of this deficiency, the radical view is nothing but heterodoxy in traditional economic theory. In the second part an environmental protection strategy is proposed and the macroeconomic impact of environmental programme which is accord with this strategy is examined. Estimations and calculations show that even so limited a program and modest strategy give rise to decreasing % 2,8 GNP, % 3-4 consumption and % 10 investments (except environmental investments). This is a considerable cost but consequences to avoid this cost are much more serious. *?£***. T*`*^*`**` &*#>***'