Politická ekonomie 2025, 73(3):418-446 | DOI: 10.18267/j.polek.1454

Energy Security Risk Across the European Union: Converging or Diverging?

Caner Demir ORCID..., Raif Cergibozan ORCID...
Caner Demir (corresponding author), Manisa Celal Bayar University, Department of Economics, Turkey
Raif Cergibozan, Kirklareli University, Department of Economics, Turkey

In this paper, we present the results of a study examining whether the European Union, where countries act in common on many issues such as monetary policy, abolition of borders and mobilization of labour and capital, also constitutes a union in terms of energy security. From this point of view, whether the energy security risk in the European Union has converged or not is tested by using various analysis methods covering the period 1980-2018 for 17 EU countries. The findings of the study not only reveal whether individual countries converge to the group average but also show whether the group as a whole forms a convergent outlook. The linear unit root analysis indicates that each country is in a stochastic convergence process towards the group average. In addition, time series beta convergence analysis, which takes into account country- -specific structural break periods, is applied and the convergent-divergent situation of each country before and after the break is revealed. Following this determination of individual countries, whether the sample as a whole constitutes a convergent process is tested with sigma and panel beta convergence models and it is determined that the 17 countries subject to the analysis form a convergent outlook as a whole. A robustness check is also made via a nonlinear time series analysis and the previous findings are confirmed.

Keywords: Energy security, European Union, convergence, divergence, time series analysis
JEL classification: C22, P18, Q40, Q47

Received: December 20, 2023; Revised: July 4, 2024; Accepted: August 12, 2024; Prepublished online: March 11, 2025; Published: June 19, 2025  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Demir, C., & Cergibozan, R. (2025). Energy Security Risk Across the European Union: Converging or Diverging? Politická ekonomie, 73(3), 418-446. doi: 10.18267/j.polek.1454
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Adali, Z., Toygar, A., Yildirim, U. (2023). Assessing the stochastic behavior of fishing grounds footprint of top ten fishing countries. Regional Studies in Marine Science, 63, 103015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsma.2023.103015 Go to original source...
    2. Afonso, A., Rault, C. (2009). Spend-and-Tax: A Panel Data Investigation for the EU. Economics Bulletin, 29(4), 2542-2548. Go to original source...
    3. Afonso, A., Jalles, J. T. (2016). The elusive character of fiscal sustainability. Applied Economics, 48(28), 2651-2664. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2015.1128074 Go to original source...
    4. Ahiakpor, J. C., Amirkhalkhali, S. (1989). On the difficulty of eliminating deficits with higher taxes: Some Canadian evidence. Southern Economic Journal, 56(1), 24-31. Go to original source...
    5. Anderson, W., Wallace, M. S., Warner J. T. (1986). Government spending and taxation: What causes what? Southern Economic Journal, 52(3), 630-639. https://doi.org/10.2307/1059262 Go to original source...
    6. Aydin, M., Pata, U. K., Inal, V. (2022). Economic policy uncertainty and stock prices in BRIC countries: evidence from asymmetric frequency domain causality approach. Applied Economic Analysis, 30(89), 114-129. https://doi.org/10.1108/AEA-12-2020-0172 Go to original source...
    7. Aydin, M. (2024). The dynamic relationships between nuclear energy consumption, nuclear reactors and load capacity factor: time and frequency domain panel data analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 31(60), 67232-67243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-29723-y Go to original source...
    8. Aydin, M., Bozatli, O. (2023). The impacts of the refugee population, renewable energy consumption, carbon emissions, and economic growth on health expenditure in Turkey: new evidence from Fourier-based analyses. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(14), 41286-41298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-25181-8 Go to original source...
    9. Baghestani, H., McNown, R. (1994). Do revenues or spendings respond to budgetary disequilibria?, Southern Economic Journal, 61(2), 311-322. https://doi.org/10.2307/1059979 Go to original source...
    10. Balsalobre-Lorente, D., Topaloglu, E. E., Nur, T., et al. (2023). Exploring the linkage between financial development and ecological footprint in APEC countries: A novel view under corruption perception and environmental policy stringency. Journal of Cleaner Production, 414(33), 137686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137686 Go to original source...
    11. Becker, R., Enders, W., Lee, J. (2006). A stationarity test in the presence of an unknown number of smooth breaks. Journal of Time Series Analysis, 27(3), 381-409. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9892.2006.00478.x Go to original source...
    12. Bella, M., Quintieri, B. (1996). Evidence from the Italian case. In: Capros, P., Meulders, D. Budgetary Policy Modelling: Public expenditures, pp. 208-227. London and New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-14235-9.
    13. Blackley, P. R. (1986). Causality Between Revenues and Spendings and the Size of the Federal Budget. Government Finance Quarterly, 14(2), 139-156. https://doi.org/10.1177/109114218601400202 Go to original source...
    14. Bozatli, O., Bal, H., Albayrak, M. (2023). Testing the export-led growth hypothesis in Turkey: New evidence from time and frequency domain causality approaches. The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 32(6), 835-853. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638199.2022.2144932 Go to original source...
    15. Breitung, J., Candelon, B. (2006). Testing for short-and long-run causality: a frequency-domain approach. Journal of Econometrics, 132(2), 363-378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2005.02.004 Go to original source...
    16. Buchanan, J. M., Wagner, R. E., Buchanan, J. M., et al. (1978). The political biases of Keynesian economics. Fiscal Responsibility in Constitutional Democracy, 1(1), 79-117. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-7125-0 Go to original source...
    17. Chang, T., Ho, Y. H. (2002). A Note on Testing Tax-and-Spend, Spend-and-Tax or Fiscal Synchronization: The Case of China. Journal of Economic Development, 27(1), 151-160.
    18. Chang, T., Liu, W. R., Caudill, S. B. (2002). Tax-and-spend, spend-and-tax, or fiscal synchronization: new evidence for ten countries. Applied Economics, 34(12), 1553-1561. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036840110103265 Go to original source...
    19. Delena, M., Magazzino, C. (2012). Government Spending and Revenue in Italy 1862-1993. Economic Notes, 41(3), 145-172. Go to original source...
    20. Kirikkaleli, D., Ozbeser, B. (2022). New insights into an old issue: exploring the nexus between government spendings and economic growth in the United States. Applied Economics Letters, 29(2), 129-134. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2020.1859448 Go to original source...
    21. Ewing, B. T., Payne, J. E., Thompson, M. A., et al. (2006). Government Spendings and Revenues: Evidence from Asymmetric Modeling. Southern Economic Journal, 73(1), 190-197. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2325-8012.2006.tb00765.x Go to original source...
    22. Friedman, M. (2019). The limitations of tax limitation. In: Haveman R. H., Zellner, B. B. Policy Studies: Review Annual. New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-1351319881.
    23. Garcia, S., Hénin, P. Y. (1999). Balancing budget through tax increases or spending cuts: is it neutral? Economic Modelling, 16(4), 591-612. Go to original source...
    24. Geweke, J. (1982). Measurement of linear dependence and feedback between multiple time series. Journal of The American Statistical Association, 77(378), 304-313. https://doi.org/10.2307/2287238 Go to original source...
    25. Granger, C. W. (1969). Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 37(3), 424-438. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912791 Go to original source...
    26. Gurdal, T., Aydin, M., Inal, V. (2021). The relationship between tax revenue, government expenditure, and economic growth in G7 countries: new evidence from time and frequency domain approaches. Economic Change and Restructuring, 54(6), 305-337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10644-020-09280-x Go to original source...
    27. Hoover, K. D., Sheffrin, S. M. (1992). Causation, Spending, and Taxes: Sand in the Sandbox or Tax Collector for the Welfare State? American Economic Review, 82(1), 225-248.
    28. Hosoya, Y. (1991). The decomposition and measurement of the interdependence between second-order stationary process. Probability Theory and Related Fields, 88(1), 429-444. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01192551 Go to original source...
    29. Koç, P., İzgi Şahpaz, K. (2023). Analysis of The Causality Relationship Among Digitalisation, Unemployment Rate, and Divorce Rates: A Research on Türkiye. Sosyoekonomi, 31(56), 151-169. https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.2023.02.07 Go to original source...
    30. Koren, S., Stiassny, A. (1998). Tax and spend, or spend and tax? An international study. Journal of Policy Modeling, 20(2), 163-191. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0161-8938(96)00073-7 Go to original source...
    31. Kwiatkowski, D., Phillips, P. C., Schmidt, P., et al. (1992). Testing the null hypothesis of stationarity against the alternative of a unit root: How sure are we that economic time series have a unit root? Journal of Econometrics, 54(1-3), 159-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(92)90104-Y Go to original source...
    32. Linhares, F., Nojosa, G. (2020). Changes in the tax-spend nexus: Evidence from Selected European Countries. Economics Bulletin, 40(4), 3077-3087.
    33. Magazzino, C., Brady, G. L., Forte, F. (2019). A panel data analysis of the fiscal sustainability of G-7 countries. The Journal of Economic Asymmetries, 20(C), e00127. ttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeca.2019.e00127 Go to original source...
    34. Manage, N., Marlow, M. L. (1986). The causal relation between federal expenditures and receipts. Southern Economic Journal, 52(3), 617-629. https://doi.org/10.2307/1059261 Go to original source...
    35. Marlow, M. L., Manage, N. (1987). Spendings and Receipts: Testing for Causality in State and Local Government Finances. Government Choice, 53(3), 243-255. Go to original source...
    36. Meltzer, A. H., Richard, S. F. (1983). Tests of a rational theory of the size of government. Government Choice, 41(3), 403-418. Go to original source...
    37. Miller, S. M., Russek, F. S. (1990). Co-Integration and Error-Correction Models: The Temporal Causality between Government Taxes and Spending. Southern Economic Journal, 57(1), 221-229. https://doi.org/10.2307/1060491 Go to original source...
    38. Mutascu, M. (2015). A bootstrap panel Granger causality analysis of government revenues and spendings in the PIIGS countries. Economics Bulletin, 35(3), 2000-2004.
    39. Mutascu, M. (2016). Government revenues and spendings in the East European economies: A bootstrap panel granger causality approach. Eastern European Economics, 54(6), 489-502. https://doi.org/10.1080/00128775.2016.1204237 Go to original source...
    40. Musgrave, R. (1966). Principles of budget determination. In: Cameron, H. A., Henderson, W. Public finance: Selected readings, pp. 15-27. New York: Random House, NY.
    41. Nazlioglu, S., Gormus, N. A., Soytas, U. (2016). Oil prices and real estate investment trusts (REITs): Gradual-shift causality and volatility transmission analysis. Energy Economics, 60, 168-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2016.09.009 Go to original source...
    42. Owoye, O. (1995). The Causal Relationship Between Taxes and Spendings in the G-7 Countries: Cointegration and Error-Correction Models. Applied Economics Letters, 2(1), 19-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/135048595357744 Go to original source...
    43. Owoye, O., Onafowora, O. A. (2011). The relationship between tax revenues and government expenditures in European Union and non-European Union OECD countries. Government Finance Review, 39(3), 429-461. https://doi.org/10.1177/1091142110386211 Go to original source...
    44. Payne, J. E. (1997). The tax-spend debate: the case of Canada. Applied Economics Letters, 4(6), 381-386. https://doi.org/10.1080/135048597355357 Go to original source...
    45. Paleologou, S. M. (2013). Asymmetries in the revenue-spending nexus: A tale of three countries. Economic Modelling, 30(1), 52-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2012.09.022 Go to original source...
    46. Peacock, A. T., Wiseman, J. (1961). Front matter, the growth of government expenditure in the United Kingdom. In: The growth of government expenditure in the United Kingdom. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
    47. Ram, R. (1988). Additional Evidence on Causality between Government Revenue and Government Spending. Southern Economic Journal, 54(3), 763-769. Go to original source...
    48. Reddick, G. C. (2003). Long-Run and Short-Run Budgeting: Theories and Empirical Evidence for the Canadian Provinces. International Journal of Government Administration, 26(4), 427-453. Go to original source...
    49. Sakamoto, N., Takimoto, T. (2015). Tax, spend, and democracy indices in Japan. Yamagata: Yamagata University.
    50. Saunoris, J. W., Payne, J. E. (2010). Tax more or spend less? Asymmetries in the UK revenue-spending nexus. Journal of Policy Modeling, 32(4), 478-487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2010.05.012 Go to original source...
    51. Toda, H. Y., Yamamoto, T. (1995). Statistical inference in vector autoregressions with possibly integrated processes. Journal of Econometrics, 66(1-2), 225-250. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(94)01616-8 Go to original source...
    52. Trachanas, E., Katrakilidis, C. (2013). Fiscal deficits under financial pressure and insolvency: Evidence for Italy, Greece and Spain. Journal of Policy Modeling, 35(5), 730-749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2013.03.013 Go to original source...
    53. Von Furstenberg, G. M., Green, R. J., Jeong, J. H. (1986). Tax and Spend, or Spend and Tax? The Review of Economics and Statistics, 68(2), 179-188. Go to original source...
    54. Vamvoukas, G. (2012). Panel Data Modelling and The Tax-Spend Controversy in the Euro Zone. Applied Economics, 44(31), 4073-4085. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2011.587777 Go to original source...
    55. Young, T. (2009). Tax-Spend or Fiscal Illusion? Cato Journal, 29(3), 469-484.
    56. Westerlund, J., Mahdavi, S., Firoozi, F. (2011). The tax-spending nexus: Evidence from a panel of US state-local governments. Economic Modelling, 28(3), 885-890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2010.10.016 Go to original source...
    57. Wang, Y., Wei, W. X. (2023). The Nexus between Federal Revenue and Spending in Canada: A Time-Frequency Perspective. Statistics, Politics and Policy, 14(1), 113-123. https://doi.org/10.1515/spp-2022-0021 Go to original source...
    58. Yilanci, V., Aslan, M., Ozgur, O. (2018). Testing the validity of PPP theory for African countries. Applied Economics Letters, 25(18), 1273-1277. 10.1080/13504851.2017.1418066 Go to original source...
    59. Türkyilmaz, S., Özer, M., Kutlu, E. (2007). Döviz Kuru Oynakliği ile İthalat ve İhracat Arasindaki İlişkilerin Zaman Serisi Analizi. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 7(2), 133-150.
    60. Wilson, P. (2001). Exchange Rates and the Trade Balance for Dynamic Asian Economies-Does the J-Curve Exist for Singapore, Malaysia, and Korea? Open Economies Review, 12(4), 389-413. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017982901034 Go to original source...
    61. Wolfe, M. (1955). The Concept of Economic Sectors. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(3), 402-420. https://doi.org/10.2307/1885848 Go to original source...
    62. Wooldridge, J. M. (2010). Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. Cambridge: The MIT Press. ISBN 9780262232586.
    63. Yalçin, C., Saygili, Ş., Cihan, C., et al. (2012). Türkiye İmalat Sanayiinde İthal Girdi Kullanimi. Iktisat Isletme ve Finans, 27(321), 9-38. https://doi.org/10.3848/iif.2012.321.3544 Go to original source...
    64. Yamak, R., Korkmaz, A. (2011). Reel Döviz Kuru ve Diş Ticaret Dengesi İlişkisi. Istanbul University Econometrics and Statistics e-Journal, 2.
    65. Yazici, M., Ahmad Klasra, M. (2010). Import Content of Exports and J-Curve Effect. Applied Economics, 42(6), 769-776. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036840701720846 Go to original source...
    66. Yülek, M. (2019). Uluslarin Yükselişi: İmalat, Ticaret, Sanayi Politikasi ve Ekonomik Kalkinma. Istanbul: Kronik Kitap. ISBN 9786057635044.
    67. Yülek, M. A. (2014). Hoş Olmayan Bir Reel Kur Aritmetiği. Business and Economics Research Journal, 5(3), 1-13.
    68. Yurtoğlu, Y. (2017). Reel Döviz Kuru ile İhracat Arasindaki Nedensellik İlişkisi: Türkiye Örneğin (1997-2015). Gazi İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 3(1), 71-88.
    69. Zengin, A. (2001). Reel Döviz Kuru Hareketleri ve Diş Ticaret Fiyatlari (Türkiye Ekonomisi Üzerine Ampirik Bulgular). Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 2(2), 27-41.
    70. Zia, U., Mahmood, Z. (2013). Exchange Rate Depreciation and Export Price Competitiveness: The Case of Pakistani Manufacturing Industries. Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, 18(4), 529-542. https://doi.org/10.1080/13547860.2012.742722 Go to original source...

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY NC ND 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content