دوره 28، شماره 2 - ( تابستان 1402 )                   دوره28 شماره 2 صفحات 154-115 | برگشت به فهرست نسخه ها

XML English Abstract Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Sayadi M, Mamipour S, Galavi M, Ghaed E. (2023). Evaluating the Impact of Economic-Institutional-Energy Variables on the Ecological Footprint: The Application of the Panel Quantile Regression Model in Selected Countries of the MENA Region. JPBUD. 28(2), 115-154. doi:10.61186/jpbud.28.2.115
URL: http://jpbud.ir/article-1-2190-fa.html
صیادی محمد، ممی پور سیاب، گلوی مریم، قائد ابراهیم. ارزیابی تاثیر متغیرهای اقتصادی- نهادی- انرژی بر ردپای اکولوژیکی: کاربرد مدل پانل کوانتایل در کشورهای منتخب منطقه منا فصلنامه برنامه ریزی و بودجه 1402; 28 (2) :154-115 10.61186/jpbud.28.2.115

URL: http://jpbud.ir/article-1-2190-fa.html

ارزیابی تاثیر متغیرهای اقتصادی- نهادی- انرژی بر ردپای اکولوژیکی: کاربرد مدل پانل کوانتایل در کشورهای منتخب منطقه منا
محمد صیادی1 ، سیاب ممی پور2 ، مریم گلوی2 ، ابراهیم قائد* 3
1- گروه اقتصاد، دانشکده اقتصاد، دانشگاه خوارزمی تهران، تهران، ایران.
2- گروه اقتصاد، دانشکده اقتصاد، دانشگاه خوارزمی تهران، تهران، ایران
3- گروه اقتصاد، دانشکده علوم اداری و اقتصاد، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد، مشهد، ایران ، Ebrahimghaed@mail.um.ac.ir
چکیده:   (1476 مشاهده)
هدف اصلی پژوهش حاضر بررسی تاثیر شاخص‌های اقتصادی، کیفیت نهادی، و بهره‌وری انرژی بر ردپای اکولوژیکی (به عنوان شاخصی برای ارزیابی درجۀ تخریب محیط‎زیست) است. برای این منظور، از داده‌های سالیانه 15 کشور منطقه منا (خاورمیانه و شمال آفریقا) طی دوره زمانی 1990 تا 2021 با رویکرد پانل کوانتایل استفاده شده است. مدل‌ پانل کوانتایل امکان بررسی نحوۀ تاثیر متغیرهای پژوهش بر ردپای اکولوژیکی را طی کوانتایل (چندک‌)های مختلف فراهم می‌کند. یافته‌ها حاکی از اثرگذاری ضرایب متغیرها بر ردپای اکولوژیکی مطابق مبانی نظری مورد انتظار است، به‎نحوی که تولید ناخالص داخلی سرانه، نسبت سرمایه­ گذاری مستقیم خارجی، درجۀ شهرنشینی و بی ­ثباتی سیاسی نیز اثر مثبت و معناداری بر ردپای اکولوژیکی دارند و شاخص باز بودن تجاری، کنترل فساد، شاخص دموکراسی و بهره­ وری انرژی نیز اثر منفی و معناداری بر ردپای اکولوژیکی می‏ گذارند. این اثرگذاری در کوانتایل مختلف ثابت نبوده است، به‎نحوی که میزان اثرگذاری متغیرهای تولید ناخالص داخلی سرانه، بهره­ وری انرژی، نسبت سرمایه ­گذاری مستقیم خارجی، درجۀ شهرنشینی و بی‌ثباتی سیاسی در کوانتایل‌های بالا به‎مراتب بیش‎تر از کوانتایل‌های پایین است و میزان اثرگذاری متغیرهای شاخص باز بودن تجاری، کنترل فساد و شاخص دموکراسی در کوانتایل‌های پایین، بیش‎تر از کوانتایل­ های بالاست.
واژه‌های کلیدی: ردپای اکولوژیکی، مدل پانل کوانتایل، کیفیت نهادی، بهره وری انرژی، منطقه منا
متن کامل [PDF 1240 kb]   (658 دریافت)    
نوع مطالعه: پژوهشي | موضوع مقاله: اقتصاد انرژی، محیط زیست و منابع طبیعی
دریافت: 1401/12/8 | پذیرش: 1402/5/8 | انتشار الکترونیک: 1402/8/8
فهرست منابع
1. Ahmed, Z., Asghar, M. M., Malik, M. N., & Nawaz, K. (2020a). Moving Towards a Sustainable Environment: The Dynamic Linkage Between Natural Resources, Human Capital, Urbanization, Economic Growth, and Ecological Footprint in China. Resources Policy, 67(1), 101677. [DOI:10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101677]
2. Ahmed, Z., Zafar, M. W., & Ali, S. (2020b). Linking Urbanization, Human Capital, and the Ecological Footprint in G7 Countries: An Empirical Analysis. Sustainable Cities and Society, 55(1), 102064. [DOI:10.1016/j.scs.2020.102064]
3. Akadiri, S. S., Adebayo, T. S., Asuzu, O. C., Onuogu, I. C., & Oji-Okoro, I. (2022). Testing the Role of Economic Complexity on the Ecological Footprint in China: A Nonparametric Causality-In-Quantiles Approach. Energy & Environment, 0958305X221094573. [DOI:10.1177/0958305X221094573]
4. Akadiri, S. S., Bekun, F. V., & Sarkodie, S. A. (2019). Contemporaneous Interaction between Energy Consumption, Economic Growth and Environmental Sustainability in South Africa: What Drives What? Science of the Total Environment, 686(1), 468-475. [DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.421] [PMID]
5. Ali, S., Yusop, Z., Kaliappan, S. R., & Chin, L. (2020). Dynamic common Correlated Effects of Trade Openness, FDI, and Institutional Performance on Environmental Quality: Evidence from OIC Countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(11), 11671-11682. [DOI:10.1007/s11356-020-07768-7] [PMID]
6. Al-Mulali, U., & Ozturk, I. (2016). The Investigation of Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis in the Advanced Economies: The Role of Energy Prices. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 54(1), 1622-1631. [DOI:10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.131]
7. Alola, A. A., Bekun, F. V., & Sarkodie, S. A. (2019). Dynamic Impact of Trade Policy, Economic Growth, Fertility Rate, Renewable and Non-Renewable Energy Consumption on Ecological Footprint in Europe. Science of the Total Environment, 685(1), 702-709. [DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.139] [PMID]
8. Angelsen, A. (2009). Realising REDD+: National Strategy and Policy Options: Cifor.
9. Arouri, M. E. H., Youssef, A. B., M'henni, H., & Rault, C. (2012). Energy Consumption, Economic Growth and CO2 Emissions in Middle East and North African Countries. Energy Policy, 45, 342-349. [DOI:10.1016/j.enpol.2012.02.042]
10. Ayres, R. U., & Nair, I. (1984). Thermodynamics and Economics. Physics Today, 37(11), 62-71. [DOI:10.1063/1.2915973]
11. Berndt, E. R., & Wood, D. O. (1986). Energy Price Shocks and Productivity Growth in US and UK Manufacturing. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 2(3), 1-31. [DOI:10.1093/oxrep/2.3.1-a]
12. Bhattarai, M., & Hammig, M. (2001). Institutions and the Environmental Kuznets Curve for Deforestation: A Crosscountry Analysis for Latin America, Africa and Asia. World Development, 29(6), 995-1010. [DOI:10.1016/S0305-750X(01)00019-5]
13. Bloom, N. (2009). The Impact of Uncertainty Shocks. Econometrica, 77(3), 623-685. [DOI:10.3982/ECTA6248]
14. Breusch, T. S., & Pagan, A. R. (1980). The Lagrange Multiplier Test and Its Applications to Model Specification in Econometrics. The Review of Economic Studies, 47(1), 239-253. [DOI:10.2307/2297111]
15. Chowdhury, M. A. F., Shanto, P. A., Ahmed, A., & Rumana, R. H. (2021). Does Foreign Direct Investments Impair the Ecological Footprint? New Evidence from the Panel Quantile Regression. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(1), 14372-14385. [DOI:10.1007/s11356-020-11518-0] [PMID]
16. Costantini, V., & Monni, S. (2008). Environment, Human Development and Economic Growth. Ecological Economics, 64(4), 867-880. [DOI:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.05.011]
17. Daliri, H. (2020). Relationship between Ecological Footprint and Economic Growth in D8 Countries: Testing the Kuznets Environmental Hypothesis Using PSTR Model. Journal of Economic Modeling Research, 11(39), 81-112. [In Farsi] [http://jemr.khu.ac.ir/article-1-1944-fa.html] [DOI:10.29252/jemr.10.39.81]
18. Damania, R., Fredriksson, P. G., & List, J. A. (2003). Trade Liberalization, Corruption, and Environmental Policy Formation: Theory and Evidence. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 46(3), 490-512. [DOI:10.1016/S0095-0696(03)00025-1]
19. Dasgupta, P., & Mäler, K.-G. (1995). Poverty, Institutions, and the Environmental Resource-Base. Handbook of Development Economics, 3, 2371-2463. [DOI:10.1016/S1573-4471(05)80011-7]
20. Denison, E. F. (1985). Trends in American Growth, 1929-1982: Brookings Institute.
21. Desai, U. (1998). Ecological Policy and Politics in Developing Countries: Economic Growth, Democracy, and Environment: SUNY Press.
22. Destek, M. A., & Sarkodie, S. A. (2019). Investigation of Environmental Kuznets Curve for Ecological Footprint: The Role of Energy and Financial Development. Science of the Total Environment, 650, 2483-2489. [DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.017] [PMID]
23. Dinda, S. (2004). Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis: A Survey. Ecological Economics, 49(4), 431-455. [DOI:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.02.011]
24. Dogan, E., Ulucak, R., Kocak, E., & Isik, C. (2020). The Use of Ecological Footprint in Estimating the Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis for BRICST by Considering Cross-Section Dependence and Heterogeneity. Science of the Total Environment, 723(1), 138063. [DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138063] [PMID]
25. Esfahani, A., Ghobadi, S., & Azarbaiejani, K. (2022). Dynamic Effect of Renewable and Non-Renewable Energy Consumption on Ecological Footprint in Selected Developing Countries (Generalized Method of Moments Approach). Program and Development Research, 3(1), 93-119. [In Farsi]
26. Fakher, H.-A., Abedi, Z., & Shaygani, B. (2018). Investigating the Relationship between Trade and Financial Openness with Ecological Footprint. Economic Modelling, 11(40), 49-67. [In Farsi]
27. Foster, J. B. (1999). Marx's Theory of Metabolic Rift: Classical Foundations for Environmental Sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 105(2), 366-405. [DOI:10.1086/210315]
28. Grossman, G. M., & Krueger, A. B. (1991). Environmental Impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Papers Series, No. 3914. [DOI:10.3386/w3914]
29. Gupta, M., Saini, S., & Sahoo, M. (2022). Determinants of Ecological Footprint and PM2. 5: Role of Urbanization, Natural Resources and Technological Innovation. Environmental Challenges, 7(1), 100467. [DOI:10.1016/j.envc.2022.100467]
30. Hemati, R., & Khoshkalam Khosroshahi, M. (2020). The Interaction of Economic Freedom and Governance on Ecological Footprint (Selected Developing Countries). Iranian Energy Economics, 10(37), 159-182. [In Farsi] [DOI:10.22054/jiee.2022.64650.1875]
31. Homaunifar, R., & Totonchi, J. (2021). Investigating the Factors Affecting Administrative Corruption in Selected Oil-Producing Countries with a Regional Development Planning Approach: Using the Quantile Panel Model. Regional Planning, 11(41), 1-14. [In Farsi]
32. Jafari Samimi, A., & Ahmadpour, S. M. (2011). The Relationship between Environmental Performance Index (EPI) and Economic Growth in Developed Countries. Iranian Energy Economics, 1(1), 55-72. [In Farsi]
33. Kao, C. (1999). Spurious Regression and Residual-Based Tests for Cointegration in Panel Data. Journal of Econometrics, 90(1), 1-44. [DOI:10.1016/S0304-4076(98)00023-2]
34. Kato, K., Galvao Jr, A. F., & Montes-Rojas, G. V. (2012). Asymptotics for Panel Quantile Regression Models with Individual Effects. Journal of Econometrics, 170(1), 76-91. [DOI:10.1016/j.jeconom.2012.02.007]
35. Khan, D., Nouman, M., Popp, J., Khan, M. A., Ur Rehman, F., & Oláh, J. (2021). Link between Technically Derived Energy Efficiency and Ecological Footprint: Empirical Evidence from the ASEAN Region. Energies, 14(13), 3923. [DOI:10.3390/en14133923]
36. Kitzes, J., Peller, A., Goldfinger, S., & Wackernagel, M. (2007). Current Methods for Calculating National Ecological Footprint Accounts. Science for Environment & Sustainable Society, 4(1), 1-9.
37. Klugman, J. (2011). Human Development Report 2011. Sustainability and Equity: A Better Future for All. Sustainability and Equity: A Better Future for All (November 2, 2011). UNDP-HDRO Human Development Reports.
38. Koenker, R., & Bassett Jr, G. (1978). Regression Quantiles. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 46(1), 33-50. [DOI:10.2307/1913643]
39. Koenker, R., & Xiao, Z. (2002). Inference on the Quantile Regression Process. Econometrica, 70(4), 1583-1612. [DOI:10.1111/1468-0262.00342]
40. Kraft, J., & Kraft, A. (1978). On the Relationship between Energy and GNP. The Journal of Energy and Development, 3(2), 401-403.
41. Lafferty, W. M., & Meadowcroft, J. (1996). Democracy and the Environment: Edward Elgar Publishing.
42. Lambert, M., & Cushing, K. K. (2017). How Low Can you Go? Understanding Ecological Footprint Reduction in University Students, Faculty and Staff. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 18(7), 1142-1156. [DOI:10.1108/IJSHE-08-2015-0145]
43. Leitão, A. (2010). Corruption and the Environmental Kuznets Curve: Empirical Evidence for Sulfur. Ecological Economics, 69(11), 2191-2201. [DOI:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.06.004]
44. Li, J., Li, F., & Li, J. (2022). Does New-Type Urbanization Help Reduce Haze Pollution Damage? Evidence from China's County-Level Panel Data. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(31), 47123-47136. [DOI:10.1007/s11356-022-19272-1] [PMID]
45. Martínez-Zarzoso, I., Bengochea-Morancho, A., & Morales-Lage, R. (2007). The Impact of Population on CO2 Emissions: Evidence from European Countries. Environmental and Resource Economics, 38(1), 497-512. [DOI:10.1007/s10640-007-9096-5]
46. Midlarsky, M. I. (1998). Democracy and the Environment: An Empirical Assessment. Journal of Peace Research, 35(3), 341-361. [DOI:10.1177/0022343398035003005]
47. Molaei, M., & Basharat, E. (2015). Investigating Relationship between Gross Domestic Product and Ecological Footprint as an Environmental Degradation Index. Journal of Economic Research, 50(4), 1017-1033. [In Farsi]
48. Moridian, A., Yarmohammadian, N., Motalebi, M., & Shadmehr, A. (2021). The Role of Economic Complexity in the Ecological Footprint: A Review of the EKC Hypothesis for Iran. Planning and Budgeting, 26(2), 153-179. [In Farsi] [http://jpbud.ir/article-1-2006-fa.html] [DOI:10.52547/jpbud.26.2.153]
49. Mrabet, Z., AlSamara, M., & Hezam Jarallah, S. (2017). The Impact of Economic Development on Environmental Degradation in Qatar. Environmental and Ecological Statistics, 24(1), 7-38. [DOI:10.1007/s10651-016-0359-6]
50. Musah, M., Mensah, I. A., Alfred, M., Mahmood, H., Murshed, M., Omari-Sasu, A. Y., . . . Coffie, C. P. K. (2022). Reinvestigating the Pollution Haven Hypothesis: The Nexus between Foreign Direct Investments and Environmental Quality in G-20 Countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(21), 31330-31347. [DOI:10.1007/s11356-021-17508-0] [PMID]
51. Mustafavi, S. F. (2016). The Relationship between Quality of Education, Quality of Institutions, and Innovation in Environmental Technology. Planning and Budgeting, 20(4), 137-154. [In Farsi] [http://jpbud.ir/article-1-1274-fa.html]
52. Narayan, P. K., & Smyth, R. (2008). Energy Consumption and Real GDP in G7 Countries: New Evidence from Panel Cointegration with Structural Breaks. Energy Economics, 30(5), 2331-2341. [DOI:10.1016/j.eneco.2007.10.006]
53. Nathaniel, S. P., Murshed, M., & Bassim, M. (2021). The Nexus between Economic Growth, Energy Use, International Trade and Ecological Footprints: The Role of Environmental Regulations in N11 Countries. Energy, Ecology and Environment, 6(6), 496-512. [DOI:10.1007/s40974-020-00205-y]
54. Pao, H.-T. (2009). Forecast of Electricity Consumption and Economic Growth in Taiwan by State Space Modeling. Energy, 34(11), 1779-1791. [DOI:10.1016/j.energy.2009.07.046]
55. Parsasharif, H., Amirnejad, H., & Taslimi, M. (2021). Investigating and Determining the Factors Affecting the Ecological Footprint of Selected Asian and European Countries. Agricultural Economics Research, 13(2), 155-172. [In Farsi]
56. Pata, U. K. (2021). Renewable and Non-Renewable Energy Consumption, Economic Complexity, CO2 Emissions, and Ecological Footprint in the USA: Testing the EKC Hypothesis with a Structural Break. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(1), 846-861. [DOI:10.1007/s11356-020-10446-3] [PMID]
57. Payne, R. A. (1995). Freedom and the Environment. Journal of Democracy, 6(3), 41-55. [DOI:10.1353/jod.1995.0053]
58. Pearce, F. (2013). Admit it: We Can't Measure Our Ecological Footprint. New Scientist, 20 November. [https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029445-000]
59. Pedroni, P. (1999). Critical Values for Cointegration Tests in Heterogeneous Panels with Multiple Regressors. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and statistics, 61(S1), 653-670. [DOI:10.1111/1468-0084.61.s1.14]
60. Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A Simple Panel Unit Root Test in the Presence of Cross‐Section Dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), 265-312. [DOI:10.1002/jae.951]
61. Pindyck, R. S. (1979). The Structure of World Energy Demand: MIT Press.
62. Polloni-Silva, E., Ferraz, D., Camioto, F. d. C., Rebelatto, D. A. d. N., & Moralles, H. F. (2021). Environmental Kuznets Curve and the Pollution-Halo/Haven Hypotheses: An Investigation in Brazilian Municipalities. Sustainability, 13(8), 4114. [DOI:10.3390/su13084114]
63. Rehman, A., Radulescu, M., Ma, H., Dagar, V., Hussain, I., & Khan, M. K. (2021). The Impact of Globalization, Energy Use, and Trade on Ecological Footprint in Pakistan: Does Environmental Sustainability Exist? Energies, 14(17), 5234. [DOI:10.3390/en14175234]
64. Rosa, E. A., Diekmann, A., Dietz, T., & Jaeger, C. C. (2010). Human Footprints on the Global Environment: Threats to Sustainability: MIT Press. [DOI:10.7551/mitpress/8305.001.0001]
65. Royston, J. (1983). A Simple Method for Evaluating the Shapiro-Francia W′ Test of Non-Normality. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series D: The Statistician, 32(3), 297-300. [DOI:10.2307/2987935]
66. Royston, P. (1992). Approximating the Shapiro-Wilk W-Test for Non-Normality. Statistics and Computing, 2(1), 117-119. [DOI:10.1007/BF01891203]
67. Seker, F., Ertugrul, H. M., & Cetin, M. (2015). The Impact of Foreign Direct Investment on Environmental Quality: A Bounds Testing and Causality Analysis for Turkey. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 52(1), 347-356. [DOI:10.1016/j.rser.2015.07.118]
68. Shahabadi, A., & Pourjavan, A. (2013). The Relationship between Governance and So-Economic Development Indicators in Selected Countries. Journal of Social Sciences Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, 9(2), 53-75. [In Farsi] [DOI:10.22067/jss.v0i0.17868]
69. Sinha, A., & Shahbaz, M. (2018). Estimation of Environmental Kuznets Curve for CO2 Emission: Role of Renewable Energy Generation in India. Renewable Energy, 119(1), 703-711. [DOI:10.1016/j.renene.2017.12.058]
70. Stern, D. I. (2003). International Society for Ecological Economics Internet Encyclopaedia of Ecological Economics the Environmental Kuznets Curve. Department of Economics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.
71. Stern, D. I. (2004). The Rise and Fall of the Environmental Kuznets Curve. World Development, 32(8), 1419-1439. [DOI:10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.03.004]
72. Stern, D. I. (2011). The Role of Energy in Economic Growth. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1219(1), 26-51. [DOI:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05921.x] [PMID]
73. Tarazkar, M. H., Kargar Dehbidi, N., & Shokoohi, Z. (2018). Estimating the Ecological Footprint of Agricultural Production in D-8 Islamic Countries. Environmental Sciences, 16(4), 17-32. [In Farsi]
74. UNDP (2011). Sustainability and Equity: A Better Future for All. Human Development Report. [https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/migration/in/human_development_report_2011_sustai]
75. Uzar, U. (2021). The Relationship between Institutional Quality and Ecological Footprint: Is There a Connection? Paper Presented at the Natural Resources Forum. [DOI:10.1111/1477-8947.12235]
76. Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. (1998). Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth (Vol. 9): New Society Publishers.
77. Wang, S., Li, G., & Fang, C. (2018). Urbanization, Economic Growth, Energy Consumption, and CO2 Emissions: Empirical Evidence from Countries with Different Income Levels. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 81(1), 2144-2159. [DOI:10.1016/j.rser.2017.06.025]
78. Welsch, H. (2004). Corruption, Growth, and the Environment: A Cross-Country Analysis. Environment and Development Economics, 9(5), 663-693. [DOI:10.1017/S1355770X04001500]
79. Wollscheid, J. R. (2005). Essays on Political Economy of Environmental Policy: Technology Choice, Political Instability and Democracy. Southern Methodist University.
80. Xu, B., & Lin, B. (2018). Investigating the Differences in CO2 Emissions in the Transport Sector Across Chinese Provinces: Evidence from a Quantile Regression Model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 175(1), 109-122. [DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.022]
81. York, R., Rosa, E. A., & Dietz, T. (2003). A Rift in Modernity? Assessing the Anthropogenic Sources of Global Climate Change with the STIRPAT Model. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 23(10), 31-51. [DOI:10.1108/01443330310790291]
82. Zafar, M. W., Zaidi, S. A. H., Khan, N. R., Mirza, F. M., Hou, F., & Kirmani, S. A. A. (2019). The Impact of Natural Resources, Human Capital, and Foreign Direct Investment on the Ecological Footprint: The Case of the United States. Resources Policy, 63(1), 101428. [DOI:10.1016/j.resourpol.2019.101428]
83. سن، آمارتیا کومار (1381). توسعه یعنی آزادی. ترجمۀ حسین راغفر، انتشارات نی.
بازنشر اطلاعات
Creative Commons License این مقاله تحت شرایط Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License قابل بازنشر است.

کلیه حقوق این وب سایت متعلق به فصلنامه برنامه ریزی و بودجه می باشد.

طراحی و برنامه نویسی : یکتاوب افزار شرق

© 2024 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Planning and Budgeting

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb