Green finance, innovation, and resource efficiency have gained significant traction recently, particularly in resource-rich countries. This study investigates the role of green finance and innovation in resource efficiency with the mediating lens of environmental regulations and market rules. The study employs a structural equation model on a panel of 15 resource-rich countries from 1995 to 2023. The findings illustrate a complicated interplay between the variables. First, the findings show that green financing positively and negatively affects resource efficiency. In contrast, green innovation constantly improves resource efficiency. Market rules have a favorable impact on resource efficiency. Environmental laws, however, hurt resource efficiency. Furthermore, the study reveals that green financing favors market regulations, implying that financial expenditures in green initiatives might strengthen regulatory frameworks that promote market efficiency. In contrast, green finance harms environmental rules, and green innovation harms both market and environmental regulations. In addition, we divided the sample into developed and developing nations and offered a sub-group analysis to take into consideration the variations in the degree of national development and green advances to further improve the analysis. Overall, the study emphasizes the multifaceted role of green finance and innovation in increasing resource efficiency within regulatory frameworks. These findings are critical for policymakers and stakeholders in resource-rich countries seeking to reconcile economic growth with sustainable development.

Public welfare and macroeconomic stability should be the main objectives of fiscal and monetary policy cooperation. Monetary and fiscal policy should be coordinated better to maintain sustainable economic development. To implement fiscal measures and monetary controls, a balanced budget is necessary. This study uses data from 1976 to 2022. A macroeconomic stability check uses real GDP, current account balance, exports, real effective exchange rate, broad money (M2), foreign exchange reserves, consumer price index (CPI), nominal exchange rate, government expenditures, and government tax revenue. The VAR models we use are Impulse Response Functions (IRFs) and Variance Decompositions (VDs). CMR feels a negative impact, TRY, whereas M2G, GY, and others feel a positive impact. Achieving output and price stability requires higher call money rates, more tax revenues, and reduced government spending. Output gaps should be negative.M2G and CABY are negatively correlated, whereas CABY and CMR are positively correlated. If there is a negative output gap, monetary aggregates and taxes conflict with price and production stability; however, policy should aim to increase the current account balance. We recommend strict fiscal and monetary policy measures to stabilize output and limit inflation whenever there is a positive output gap. In addition to strengthening trade and foreign exchange reserves, reduced government spending will stabilize exchange rates; however, increasing tax revenue will counteract these benefits by strengthening the current account.