Money talks: A holistic and longitudinal view of the budget basket in the face of climate change and sustainable finance matters

Lulaj, Enkeleda Article Money talks: A holistic and longitudinal view of the budget basket in the face of climate change and sustainable finance matters Ekonomika Provided in Cooperation with: Vilnius University Press Suggested Citation: Lulaj, Enkeleda (2024) : Money talks: A holistic and longitudinal view of the budget basket in the face of climate change and sustainable finance matters, Ekonomika, ISSN 2424-6166, Vilnius University Press, Vilnius, Vol. 103, Iss. 1, pp. 91-107, https://doi.org/10.15388/Ekon.2024.103.1.6 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/323142 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 91 Ekonomika ISSN 1392-1258 eISSN 2424-6166 2024, vol. 103(1), pp. 91–107 DOI: https://doi.org/10.15388/Ekon.2024.103.1.6 Money Talks: A Holistic and Longitudinal View of the Budget Basket in the Face of Climate Change and Sustainable Finance Matters Enkeleda Lulaj Faculty of Business, University Haxhi Zeka, Kosovo Email: [email protected] ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5325-3015 Abstract. This study presents a holistic and longitudinal view of the household budget basket concerning climate change and sustainable finance matters. It aims to understand their impact on the budget basket by examining the relationship between money, climate change and sustainable finance in a global economy for transition countries. Comprehensive CPI data were collected in Kosovo from 2002 to 2022, and data analysis was performed using statistical methods such as t-tests and proximity matrixes in SPSS. The results show significant differences between the average and desired values within the budget basket, indicating changes in consumer behavior, particularly in food expenditures, budget allocations, and climate change impacts. Interesting patterns emerge, such as correlations between bread, cereals, and meat, and the absence of fish in some purchases. Spending on clothing and other goods also deviates from desired values. These findings highlight the complex relationship between money, climate change, sustainable finance, and consumer spending patterns, and underscore the need to address the gap between expected and desired spending values for the global economy in transition economies. Future research should focus on analyzing household spending and its interaction with other factors to improve personal financial management and promote sustainable financial behavior in a larger number of global economies. Keywords: Money Talks; Sustainable Finance; Climate Change; Budget Basket; Sustainable and Environmental Finance; Finance Matters; Global Finance Economy 1. Introduction This paper explores a crucial issue in the context of finance by examining the holistic and longitudinal view of the budget basket and its link to sustainable finance and climate change. According to (Morgan et al., 2020), consumers require income and development, highlighting the importance of a collective benefits approach to address the lack of coordinated action and weak relationships between central and local levels of government. Further, (Griva et al., 2018) emphasize the power of the budget basket as a tool to understand consumer habits and preferences in the context of climate change and sustainable finance. As for (Proedrou, 2023), the reordering of global economic problems in the era of Received: 02/08/2023. Revised: 09/09/2023. Accepted: 20/12/2023 Copyright © 2024 Enkeleda Lulaj. Published by Vilnius University Press This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Contents lists available at Vilnius University Press ISSN 1392-1258 eISSN 2424-6166 Ekonomika. 2024, vol. 103(1) 92 climate change, sustainable finance, and the budget basket are highlighted. Furthermore, (Campagnolo, 2022) highlights the macroeconomic consequences of climate change on consumer households, while (Wilts et al., 2021) explore the implications of food security in the future. Bhardwaj et al. (2023) examine the risk associated with varying levels of investment at different risk levels. In light of climate change and the need for sustainable financial practices, Lulaj (2023) emphasizes that companies seeking sustainable profitability must innovate in their delivery of information applications such as discounts, product usage guidelines, expiration dates, product composition details, and various payment methods, in addition to offering transportation services to consumers. To effectively implement these changes, companies are advised to utilize cost-volume-profit (CVP) analysis (Lulaj, 2018) and prepare financial statements based on reliable data (Lulaj, 2021). Such strategic approaches are critical to promoting sustainable decision-making in the context of climate change. Furthermore, to promote sustainable finances, (Neill and Lahne, 2022) argue that consumers adopt a spending basket that encourages realistic purchasing decisions, considering various products and their impact on sustainable finances. This aligns with the emphasis placed on residents’ real wages and incomes (consumers) for better evaluation by (Gelman and Santilli, 2018). Therefore, this study aims to provide a holistic and longitudinal view of the budget basket in the face of climate change and sustainable finance for transitioning countries in the global economy, using data from Kosovo. By examining the complex interactions between money, climate change, and sustainable finance, it aims to deepen the understanding of their dynamics, taking into account historical trends, current challenges, and future projections for the global economy. This knowledge will make it possible to identify patterns, forecast future financial needs, and propose forward-looking solutions that effectively address the impact of climate change on the global economy’s basket of goods and services. 2. Review of Literature and Hypothesis Development This research takes the reader on an interesting journey into the complex realm of intertwined subjects: money talks, climate change, and sustainable finance, through a holistic and longitudinal view of the budget basket. So, the analysis of global challenges that affect the budget basket is highlighted by (Seo, 2020). On the other hand, (Fuest and Meier, 2023) and (Li et al., 2022) emphasize the importance of sustainable financing in low-carbon investments and country-oriented policies for consumers’ budget basket, climate technologies, access to financial institutions. Additionally, (Iacobuţă et al., 2022) stresses the need for harmonization in climate actions, while (Carè and Weber, 2023) highlight the importance of climate financing. Moreover, (Cheng et al., 2022) underscore the significance of climate change related to the budget basket, and sustainable finance, as they are all intricately interconnected. According to (Tariq and Hassan, 2023), green financing has a significant impact on financial sustainability, purchasing power, and cli- Enkeleda Lulaj. Money Talks: A Holistic and Longitudinal View of the Budget Basket in the Face of Climate Change and... 93 mate change in the context of sustainable social interactions, as well as the economic and demographic risks posed by climate change (Zhu et al., 2023). However, according to (Cevik and Jalles, 2023), climate change has a strong correlation with income inequalities on a global scale within the budget basket, as well as the environmental budget to prevent climate change (He et al., 2023). Ayanlade et al. (2023) underscore the necessity for a comprehensive understanding of the complex risks associated with climate change, sustainable finance, and consumer budget baskets. This includes exploring how these risks interact with socioeconomic factors, as well as the impact of social factors and population characteristics, as highlighted by Cattaneo and Foreman (2023). Regarding the intricate relationship between financial systems, climate change, and sustainable development, according to Chaikumbung (2023) and Biswas and Rahman (2023) explore the connection between corruption, financial trust, and public willingness to address climate change. Their findings underscore the importance of financial integrity in fostering climate action. According to Lagoarde-Segot (2019) emphasizes the crucial role of sustainable finance in the 21st century, which Geng et al. (2018) elaborate on by examining the fluctuating sustainability index of financing. Reforming sustainable finance and circular economy are important in reducing the impacts of climate change and social inequalities (Sepetis, 2022), and finance plays a crucial role in socio-technical transitions, and it is time to understand their role, which is why further research is needed to explore the potential of transition structures (Steffen and Schmidt, 2021). But in order for families to have a well-being, the state must reduce tax expenses for businesses as it indirectly affects the budget basket, (Lulaj and Dragusha,2022), and also ensure a fair distribution of public expenditure so that all citizens benefit equally (Lulaj et al, 2022; Lulaj, 2021 & 2022). According to (Fuest and Meier, 2023), sustainable financing incurs costs for climate policies and consumers’ budget baskets to develop a system that prevents food losses (Krestyanpol, 2023) and sheds light on budgeting behaviors and beliefs related to the budgeting process at the family level for consumption and savings behavior (Zhang et al., 2022). Hence, the budget basket offers different choices of goods and services (Shi and Cheng, 2023). Moreover, (Caputo and Lusk, 2022) emphasize that consumers select their preferred items or make combinations of two or three items in their budget baskets during purchases, using hedonic methods to easily assess the affordability of paying prices and the quantity of product purchase in a budget basket. However, (Musarat et al., 2021) emphasize the proposal of a structure to include inflation in budget evaluation and prevent cost overruns in the budget basket in the face of climate change and sustainable finance. H1: There is a complex relationship between money, climate change, sustainable finance, and how consumers utilize their funds to purchase products and services in the budget basket in the global economy H2: There exists a discrepancy between the expected value and desired value of expenditures on variables within the budget basket in the face of climate change and sustainable finance matters in the global economy. ISSN 1392-1258 eISSN 2424-6166 Ekonomika. 2024, vol. 103(1) 94 3. Methodology 3.1. Data Collection During the data collection process for the analysis of the Consumer Price Index in Kosovo for the period 2002–2022, official secondary data published by the Statistical Office of Kosovo were used. 3.2. The econometric analyses of the research Two analytical methods have been employed to perform data analysis: One Sample Test and Proximity Matrix. A statistical t-test can be used to assess the discrepancy between the expected value and desired value of expenses on variables within the budget basket in the context of climate change and sustainable finance in the global economy (Al-Kassab, 2022), (Gerald, 2018) to validate the hypothesis. The data processing in this study utilized the statistical software SPSS across 5 sections. 4. Results In the results section, the main findings regarding money talks through a holistic and longitudinal view in the budget basket concerning climate change and the importance of sustainable finance will be presented for countries in transition in the world economy with data from Kosovo. It was evident that sustainable financing can improve access to prices, and purchases, and ensure a more sustainable and adaptable budget basket to current challenges. This section will include subsections as follows: 4.1. Money talks in the budget basket through the variable of food expenses 4.2. Money talks in the budget basket through the variable of beverage expenses 4.3. Money talks in the budget basket through the variable of clothing and shoes expenses 4.4. Money talks in the budget basket through the variable of household expenses 4.5. Money talks in the budget basket through the variable of various goods and services expenses 4.1. Money talks in the budget basket through the variable of food expenses In the first section, the impact of climate change and sustainable finance on consumer food consumption was analyzed, including its subvariables: bread and cereals (BRCE), meat (ME), fish (FI), milk, cheese, and eggs (MICHEG), oils and fats (OIFA), fruits (FRU), vegetables (VEG), sugar, jam, honey, chocolate, and sweets (SJHCHSW), as well as various food products (FOOPR). Table 1 presents the results of the distance method between the dependent variable of food expenses and the independent variables (BRCE, ME, FI, MICHEG, OIFA, FRU, VEG, SJHCHSW, and FOOPR). The Var (BRCE) has the closest distance with (ME). The Var(ME) has the closest distance with (MICHEG). The Var(FI) has the closest distance with Enkeleda Lulaj. Money Talks: A Holistic and Longitudinal View of the Budget Basket in the Face of Climate Change and... 95 (FOOPR). The Var(MICHEG) has the closest distance with (VEG). The Var(OIFA) has the closest distance with (FOOPR). The Var(FRU) has the closest distance with (SJHCHSW). The Var(VEG) has the closest distance with (SJHCHSW). According to Kruskal’s stress statistics, the following findings for the matrixes are emphasized: between a variable with years (Stress=0.01554, RSQ=0.99989) the significance is 99%, between one variable and other variables (Stress=0.13348, RSQ=0.89846) the significance is 90%, between one year and the variables (Stress=0.02683, RSQ=0.99781) the fit is 99%, and between one year and other years (Stress=0.07001, RSQ=0.98949) the significance is 99%. Table 1. Proximity Matrix for the food variable in the budget basket Proximity Matrix Indep. Var. Euclidean Distance BRCE .000 ME 10.399 .000 FI 196.074 187.688 .000 MICHEG 59.814 51.936 137.629 .000 OIFA 166.688 158.413 29.612 108.331 .000 FRU 153.287 144.961 42.821 95.060 13.678 .000 VEG 100.642 92.552 95.825 42.113 66.382 53.171 .000 SJHCHSW 155.334 147.043 40.863 96.972 11.449 3.111 55.031 .000 FOOPR 170.249 161.967 26.051 111.960 3.857 17.161 70.005 15.063 .000 Dependent variable: Food MatrixZ Scores (Stress & RSQ) For the matrix between a variable with years Stress = .01554 RSQ = .99989 For the matrix between one variable and other variables Stress = .13348 RSQ = .89846 For the matrix between one year and the variables Stress = .02683 RSQ = .99781 For the matrix between one year and other years Stress = .07001 RSQ = .98949 Note: Var=variable Table 2 presents the results of the One Sample T-test for food expenses variable during the years 2002–2022. The (BRCE), the mean budget basket value is (18.26), while the desired value was (TV=90), indicating a significant difference between both values (-71.74%, p=0.000). The Var(ME), the mean budget basket value is (17.52), while the desired value was (VT=90), highlighting a significant difference between both values (-72.48%, p=0.000). The Var(FI), the mean budget basket value is (0.85), while the expected value was (VT=90), demonstrating a significant difference between both values (-89.15%, p=0.000). The Var(MICHEG), the mean budget basket value is (13.05), while the expected value was (VT=90), indicating a significant difference between both values (-76.95%, p=0.000). The Var(OIFA), the mean budget basket value is (3.46), while the expected value was (VT=90), showing a significant difference between both values (-86.54%, p=0.000). The Var(FRU), the mean budget basket value is (4.65), while the expected value was (VT=90), indicating a significant difference between both values (-85.35%, p=0.000). The Var(VEG), the mean budget basket ISSN 1392-1258 eISSN 2424-6166 Ekonomika. 2024, vol. 103(1) 96 value is (9.35), while the expected value was (VT=90), demonstrating a significant difference between both values (-80.65%, p=0.000). The Var(SJHCHSW), the mean budget basket value is (4.47), while the expected value was (VT=90), indicating a significant difference between both values (-85.53%, p=0.000). The Var(FOOPR), the mean budget basket value is (3.15), while the expected value was (VT=90), showing a significant difference between both values (-86.85%, p=0.000). Table 2. One Sample Test for the food variable in the budget basket One-Sample Statistics One-Sample Test Test Value = 90 NMean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean tdf Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper BRCE 22 18.263 40.807 8.7001 -8.245 21 .000 -71.73636 -89.829 -53.6435 ME 22 17.518 39.141 8.3450 -8.686 21 .000 -72.48182 -89.836 -55.1274 FI 22 .8545 1.9128 .40781 -218.59 21 .000 -89.14545 -89.993 -88.2974 MICHEG 22 13.045 29.222 6.2302 -12.352 21 .000 -76.95455 -89.911 -63.9980 OIFA 22 3.4636 7.7867 1.6601 -52.126 21 .000 -86.53636 -89.988 -83.0839 FRU 22 4.6545 10.406 2.2186 -38.467 21 .000 -85.34545 -89.959 -80.7315 VEG 22 9.3455 20.927 4.4616 -18.077 21 .000 -80.65455 -89.933 -71.3760 SJHCHSW 22 4.4727 10.019 2.1362 -40.036 21 .000 -85.52727 -89.969 -81.0847 FOOPR 22 3.1455 7.0770 1.5088 -57.564 21 .000 -86.85455 -89.992 -83.7168 Note: Var=variable 4.2. Money talks in the budget basket through the variable of beverage expenses. In the second section, the impact of climate change and sustainable finance on consumer beverage consumption has been analyzed, including its sub-variables such as coffee, tea, and cocoa (COTECO), as well as mineral water, soft drinks, fruit and vegetable juices (MWSDFGJ). Table 3. Proximity Matrix for the beverage expenditure variable Proximity Matrix Indep. Var. Euclidean Distance COTECO .000 MWSDFGJ 9.388 .000 Dependent variable: Soft drinks MatrixZ Scores (Stress & RSQ) For the matrix between a variable with years Stress = .00000 RSQ = 1.00000 For the matrix between one variable and other variables Stress = .15412 RSQ = .99112 For the matrix between one year and the variables Stress = .11283 RSQ = .98182 For the matrix between one year and other years Stress = .00000 RSQ = 1.00000 Note: Var=variable Enkeleda Lulaj. Money Talks: A Holistic and Longitudinal View of the Budget Basket in the Face of Climate Change and... 97 Table 3 presents the results of the distance method between the dependent variable of beverage expenses and the independent variables (COTECO and MWSDFGJ). The Var(COTECO) has a close distance with (MWSDFGJ). According to Kruskal Stress statistics, the following findings for the matrixes are emphasized: between a variable with years (Stress=0.00000, RSQ=1.00000) the significance is 100%, between one variable and other variables (Stress=0.15412, RSQ=0.99112) the significance is 99%, between one year and the variables (Stress=0.11283, RSQ=0.98182) the significance is 98%, and between one year and other years (Stress=0.00000, RSQ=1.00000), the significance is 100%. Table 4. One-Sample Test for the beverage expenditure variable One-Sample Statistics One-Sample Test Test Value = 90 NMean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean tdf Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper COTECO 21 1.5238 .49589 .10821 -817.622 20 .000 -88.47619 -88.7019 -88.2505 MWSDFGJ 21 3.2190 .93948 .20501 -423.299 20 .000 -86.78095 -87.2086 -86.3533 Note: Var=variable Table 4 presents the results of the One Sample T-test for the beverage expenses variable during the years 2002–2022. The Var(COTECO), the average budget basket expenditure is (1.52), while the desired value was (TV=90). This is a significant difference between both values (-88.48%, p=0.000). The Var(MWSDFGJ), the average budget basket expenditure is (3.22), while the desired value was (VT=90). It is highlighted that there is a significant difference between both values (-87.21%, p=0.000). 4.3. Money talks in the budget basket through the variable of clothing and shoes expenses In the third section, the impact of climate change and sustainable finance on consumer purchases of clothing and shoes has been analyzed, including its sub-variables: Clothing (CLO) and Shoes (SHOE). Table 5. Proximity Matrix for clothing and shoe expenses variable Proximity Matrix Independent variables Euclidean Distance CLO .000 SHOE 12.245 .000 Dependent variable: Clothing and shoes MatrixZ Scores (Stress & RSQ) For the matrix between a variable with years Stress = .06973 RSQ = .98536 For the matrix between one variable and other variables Stress = .03652 RSQ = .99237 For the matrix between one year and the variables Stress = .00503 RSQ = .99988 For the matrix between one year and other years Stress = .02770 RSQ = .99775 Note: Var=variable ISSN 1392-1258 eISSN 2424-6166 Ekonomika. 2024, vol. 103(1) 98 Table 5 presents the results of the distance method for the variable of clothing and shoe expenses, considering the independent variables (CLO and SHOE). The Var (CLO) exhibits a close proximity with (SHOE). The Kruskal Stress statistics reveal the following for the matrixes findings: between a variable and years (Stress=0.06973, RSQ=0.98536) the significance is 99%, between one variable and other variables (Stress=0.03652, RSQ=0.99237) the significance is 99%, between one year and the variables (Stress=0.00503, RSQ=0.99988) the significance is 100%, and between one year and other years (Stress=0.02770, RSQ=0.99775) the significance is 100%. Table 6. One-Sample Test for clothing and shoe expenses variable One-Sample Statistics One-Sample Test Test Value = 90 N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper CLO 21 4.6476 1.46309 .31927 -267.335 20 .000 -85.35238 -86.0184 -84.6864 SHOE 21 2.0857 1.01355 .22117 -397.487 20 .000 -87.91429 -88.3756 -87.4529 Note: Var=variable Table 6 presents the results of the One Sample T-test for the variable of beverage expenses during the years 2002–2022. The Var(CLO), the average budget basket is (4.65), while the desired value was (TV=90). Therefore, there is a significant difference between both values (-85.35%, p=0.000). The Var(SHOE), the average budget basket is (2.09), while the desired value was (VT=90). It is emphasized that there is a significant difference between both values (-87.91%, p=0.000). The observed values are significantly lower than the expected values, indicating pronounced differences in clothing and footwear purchases. 4.4. Money talks in the budget basket through the variable of household expenses In the fourth section, the impact of climate change and sustainable financing on household expenditures of consumers has been analyzed, including its sub-variables such as current housing payment (CUHOPA), maintenance and arrangement of residence (MAARRRE), water supply and various services related to the residence (WSVSRR), and electricity, gas, and other fuels (ELGAOFU). Table 7 presents the results of the distance method between the dependent variable of household expenses with the independent variables (CUHOPA, MAARRRE, WSVSRR, and ELGAOFU). The Var(CUHOPA) has the closest distance with the variable (MAARRRE). The Var(MAARRRE) has the closest distance with (WSVSRR). The variable (WSVSRR) has the closest distance with (ELGAOFU). According to Kruskal Stress statistics, the following findings for the matrixes are emphasized: between a variable with years (Stress=0.15810, RSQ=0.88874) the significance is 89%, between one variable Enkeleda Lulaj. Money Talks: A Holistic and Longitudinal View of the Budget Basket in the Face of Climate Change and... 105 behavior. The recommendations focus on creating a more sustainable and resilient world economy by fostering responsible consumer behavior, sustainable budget planning, and promoting sustainable financial choices in various sectors. Future studies should focus on: analyzing the interaction between household expenditures and other factors for personal financial management and promoting sustainable financial behavior; identifying ways and strategies to promote sustainable financial behavior in the context of climate change and sustainable finance. References Al-Kassab, M. (2022). The Use of One Sample t-Test in the Real Data. Journal of advances in mathematics, 21, 134–138. Https://doi.org/10.24297/jam.v21i.9279. Ayanlade, A., Smucker, TH., S., Nyasimi, M., Sterly, H., Weldemariam, L., F., & Simpson, N. (2023). Complex climate change risk and emerging directions for vulnerability research in Africa. Climate Risk Management, 40, 100497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2023.100497. Bhardwaj, A., Hanawal, M., K., & Parthasarathy, P. (2023). Almost exact risk budgeting with return forecasts for portfolio allocation. Operations Research Letters, 51(2), 171-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orl.2023.02.002. Biswas, R., R., & Rahman, A. (2023). Adaptation to climate change: A study on regional climate change adaptation policy and practice framework. Journal of Environmental Management. Volume 336, 117666, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117666. Campagnolo, L., & De Cian, E. (2022). Distributional consequences of climate change impacts on residential energy demand across Italian households. Energy Economics, 110, 106020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. eneco.2022.106020. Carè, R. & Weber, O. (2023). How much finance is in climate finance? A bibliometric review, critiques, and future research directions. Research in International Business and Finance. Volume 64, 101886, https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2023.101886 Cattaneo, C., & Foreman, T. (2023). Climate change, international migration, and interstate conflicts. Ecological Economics, 211, 107890, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2023.107890 Cevik, S., Jalles, J., T. (2023). For whom the bell tolls: Climate change and income inequality. Energy Policy, 174, 113475, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2023.113475. Chaikumbung, M. (2023). The effects of institutions and cultures on people’s willingness to pay for climate change policies: A meta-regression analysis. Energy Policy, Volume 177, J113513, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. enpol.2023.113513. Cicen Y. B. (2023). The Nexus Between Institutional Quality and Inflation in Emerging Markets: A Panel Causality Test with a Fourier Function. Ekonomika, 102(1), 140-152. https://doi.org/10.15388/Ekon.2023.102.1.8 Caputo, V., and Lusk, J., L. (2022). The Basket-Based Choice Experiment: A Method for Food Demand Policy Analysis. Food Policy, Volume 109, 102252, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2022.102252. Cheng, S., L., Lucey, B., Kumar, S., Zhang, D., and Zhang, Zh. (2022). Climate finance: What we know and what we should know? Journal of Climate Finance, Volume 1, 100005, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclimf.2023.100005. Fuest, C., & Meier, V. (2023). Sustainable finance and climate change: Wasteful but a political commitment device? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Volume 118, 102795. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jeem.2023.102795. Gelman, G., & Santilli, D. (2018). Wages and standards of living in the 19th century from a comparative perspective. Consumption basket, Bare Bone Basket and welfare ratio in Buenos Aires, 1825–1849. Investigaciones de Historia Económica, 14 (2), 94-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ihe.2016.09.001. ISSN 1392-1258 eISSN 2424-6166 Ekonomika. 2024, vol. 103(1) 106 Geng, B., Zhang, X., Liang, Y., Bao, H. & Skitmore, M. (2018). Sustainable land financing in a new urbanization context: theoretical connotations, empirical tests and policy recommendations. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, volume 128, 336-344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.11.013. Gerald, B. (2018). A Brief Review of Independent, Dependent and One Sample t-test. International Journal of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, 4(2), 50-54. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijamtp.20180402.13 Grashuis, J., & Hakelius, K. (2023). Pricing strategies of corporations and consumer co-operatives in the food retail sector: Evidence from England, Sweden, and the Netherlands. Journal of Co-operative Organization and Management, 11(1), 100204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcom.2023.100204. Griva, A., Bardaki, C., Pramatari, K., & Papakiriakopoulos, D. (2018). Retail business analytics: Customer visit segmentation using market basket data. Expert Systems with Applications, 100 (15), 1-16. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2018.01.029. He, P., Zhang, Sh., Wang, L., & Ning, J. (2023). Will environmental taxes help to mitigate climate change? A comparative study based on OECD countries. Economic Analysis and Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. eap.2023.04.032. Hough, G., & Contarini, A. (2023). Can low-income consumers choose food from sustainable production methods? Current Opinion in Food Science, 51, 101035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cofs.2023.101035 Iacobuţă, G., I., Brandi, C., Dzebo, A., Donaji, S., & Duron, E. (2022). Aligning climate and sustainable development finance through an SDG lens. The role of development assistance in implementing the Paris Agreement. Global Environmental Change, 74, 102509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2022.102509. Kanay, A., Hilton, D., Charalambides, L., Corrégé, J.B., Inaudi, E., Waroquier, L., & Cézéra, S. (2021). Making the carbon basket count: Goal setting promotes sustainable consumption in a simulated online supermarket. Journal of Economic Psychology,83, 102348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2020.102348. Krestyanpol, L. (2023). Simulation modeling of consumer behavior within the concept of smart consumption. Procedia Computer Science, 217, 774-783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2022.12.274. Li, Q., Sharif, A., Razzaq, A., & Yu, Y. (2022). Do climate technology, financialization, and sustainable finance impede environmental challenges? Evidence from G10 economies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 185, 122095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122095. Luick, M., Pechey, R., Harmer, G., Bandy, L., Jebb, S., A., & Piernas, C. (2023). The impact of price promotions on confectionery and snacks on the energy content of shopping baskets: A randomised controlled trial in an experimental online supermarket. Appetite, Volume 186,106539, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. appet.2023.106539.Lulaj, E. (2021). Accounting, Reforms and Budget Responsibilities in the Financial Statements. Oblik i finansi, Institute of Accounting and Finance, issue 1, 61-69, DOI: 10.33146/23079878-2021-1(91)-61-69 Lulaj, E. (2023). A sustainable business profit through customers and its impacts on three key business domains: technology, innovation, and service (TIS). Business, Management and Economics Engineering, 21(1), 19–47. https://doi.org/10.3846/bmee.2023.18618 Lulaj, E. (2018). Role of Analysis CVP (Cost-Volume-Profit) as Important Indicator for Planning and Making Decisions in the Business Environment. European Journal of Economics and Business Studies, 4(2), pp. 99-114, https://doi.org/10.26417/ejes.v4i2.p104-120. Lulaj, E. (2021). Quality and reflecting of financial position: an enterprises model through logistic regression and natural logarithm. Journal of Economic Development, Environment and People, 10(1), 26-50. http:// dx.doi.org/10.26458/jedep.v10i1.690 Lulaj, E. (2022). An unstoppable and navigating journey towards development reform in complex financial-economic systems: an interval analysis of government expenses (past, present, future). Business, Management and Economics Engineering, 20(2), 329–357. https://doi.org/10.3846/bmee.2022.17389 Lulaj, E., & Dragusha, B. (2022). Incomes, Gaps and Well-Being: an Exploration of Direct Tax Income Statements Before and During Covid-19 Through the Comparability Interval. International Journal of Professional Business Review, 7(6), e0623. https://doi.org/10.26668/businessreview/2022.v7i6.623 Enkeleda Lulaj. Money Talks: A Holistic and Longitudinal View of the Budget Basket in the Face of Climate Change and... 107 Lagoarde-Segot, T. (2019). Sustainable finance. A critical realist perspective. Research in International Business and Finance, Volume 47, Pages 1-9, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2018.04.010 Lulaj, E. (2020). Budget Education and Management as a Necessity for Well-Being and Financial Stability: Cluster & MDS Analysis. International Journal of Financial Research, 11(6), pp. 348-364, https://doi. org/10.5430/ijfr.v11n6p348. Lulaj, E., Dragusha, B., Lulaj, D., Rustaj, V., & Gashi, A. (2021). Households savings and financial behavior in relation to the ability to handle financial emergencies: case study of Kosovo. Acta Scientiarum Polonorum. Oeconomia, 20(1), 35–48. https://doi.org/10.22630/ASPE.2021.20.1.4 Lulaj, E., Zarin, I., & Rahman, Sh. (2022). A Novel Approach to Improving E-Government Performance from Budget Challenges in Complex Financial Systems, Complexity, vol. 2022, Article ID 2507490, 16, https:// doi.org/10.1155/2022/2507490 Morgan, E., A., Buckwell, A., Guidi, C., Garcia, B., Rimmer, L., Cadman, T., & Mackey, B. (2022). Capturing multiple forest ecosystem services for just benefit sharing: The Basket of Benefits Approach. Ecosystem Services, 55, 101421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101421. Musarat, M., A., Alaloul, W.S., & Liew, M.S. (2021). Impact of inflation rate on construction projects budget: A review. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 12 (1), 407-414. , https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2020.04.009. Neill, C., L. & Lahne, J. (2022). Matching reality: A basket and expenditure based choice experiment with sensory preferences. Journal of Choice Modelling, 44, 100369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocm.2022.100369. Proedrou, F. (2023). The global climate impasse and the way forward: A global political economy and ecological economics’ perspective. Reference Module in Social Sciences. Seo, S., N. (2020). 8 - Extensions of the economic theory to a basket of globally shared goods. The Economics of Globally Shared and Public Goods, 281-305. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819658-8.00008-1. Sepetis, A. (2022). Chapter 13 - Sustainable finance and circular economy. Circular Economy and Sustainability, Volume 1: Management and Policy, 207-226. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819817-9.00002-8. Steffen, B., & Schmidt. T.S. (2021). Strengthen finance in sustainability transitions research. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 41, 77-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2021.10.018. Shi, Zh., and Cheng, J. (2023). How do government subsidies and consumers’ low-carbon preference promote new energy vehicle diffusion? A tripartite evolutionary game based on energy vehicle manufacturers, the government and consumers. Heliyon, Volume 9, Issue 3, e14327, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14327. Tariq, A., & Hassan, A. (2023). Role of green finance, environmental regulations, and economic development in the transition towards a sustainable environment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 413, 137425. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137425. Tsouli D. (2022). Financial Inclusion, Poverty, and Income Inequality: Evidence from European Countries. Ekonomika, 101(1), 37-61. https://doi.org/10.15388/Ekon.2022.101.1.3 Ulvidienė E., Meškauskaitė I., Stavytskyy A., & Giedraitis V. R. (2023). An Investigation of the Influence of Economic Growth on Taxes in Lithuania. Ekonomika, 102(1), 41-59. https://doi.org/10.15388/ Ekon.2023.102.1.3 Wilts, R., Latka, C., & Britz, W. (2021). Who is most vulnerable to climate change induced yield changes? A dynamic long run household analysis in lower income countries. Climate Risk Management. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.crm.2021.100330. Zhang, Y., C., Sussman, A., Wang-Ly, N. & Lyu., Gj., K. (2022). How consumers budget. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 204, 69-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.03.007. Zhu, P., Zhang, Z., & Lin, B. (2023). Understanding spatial evolution of global climate change risk: Insights from convergence analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137423.