Green Economy in Sustainable Development: An Analysis for OECD Countries

Öz

The understanding of the green economy, which is seen as the main strategy of sustainable development, is considered a remedy to eliminate the concerns between environmental concerns and economic goals. Therefore, measuring and considering the performance of countries in the context of the green economy is important in terms of policies to be implemented. The aim of the study is to measure and evaluate the green economy performance of the 20 founding OECD countries. In this context, a green economy index covering the years 2014-2018 was calculated based on the numerical data of 23 variables, which are thought to represent three different dimensions of the green economy. The contributions of these criteria to the green economy were weighted with the SWARA Method, one of the multi-criteria decision techniques. Using the obtained criteria weights, the green economy performance scores of the countries were determined through the TOPSIS Method. According to the scores obtained, it can be stated that the green economy performances of the 20 founding OECD countries increased in the examined period. In this performance increase, positive developments in economic and social indicators have a large share.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sustainable development
• Green economy
• SWARA
• TOPSIS
• Green economy index

Sürdürülebilir Kalkınmada Yeşil Ekonomi: OECD Ülkeleri İçin Bir Analiz

Öz

Sürdürülebilir kalkınmanın temel stratejisi olarak görülen yeşil ekonomi anlayışı, çevresel kaygılar ile ekonomik hedefler arasındaki endişeleri yok edecek bir çare olarak değerlendirilmektedir. O halde, ülkelerin, yeşil ekonomi bağlamında performanslarının ölçülmesi ve dikkate alınması uygulanacak politikalar açısından oldukça önemlidir. Çalışmanın amacı, 20 kurucu OECD ülkesinin yeşil ekonomi performansını ölçmek ve değerlendirmektir. Bu bağlamda, yeşil ekonominin üç farklı boyutunu temsil ettiği düşünülen 23 değişkene ilişkin sayısal verilerden hareketle 2014-2018 yılları arasını kapsayan bir yeşil ekonomi endeksi hesaplanmıştır. Bu kriterlerin yeşil ekonomiye katkısının ağırlıklandırılması, çok kriterli karar tekniklerinden SWARA Metodu kullanılarak yapılmıştır. Elde edilen kriter ağırlıklarından faydalanılarak TOPSIS Metodu aracılığıyla ülkelerin yeşil ekonomi performans skorları belirlenmiştir. Elde edilen skorlara göre, 20 kurucu OECD ülkesinde ele alınan dönemdeki yeşil ekonomi performansının arttığı ifade edilebilir. Bu performans artışında, ekonomik ve sosyal göstergelerdeki olumlu gelişmelerin payı büyüktür.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sürdürülebilir kalkınma
• Yeşil ekonomi
• SWARA
• TOPSIS
• Yeşil ekonomi endeksi

Kaynakça

1. Al, İ. (2019). Sustainable development and green economy: A proposal of index for Turkey. Hitit Universityjournal of Social Sciences Institute, 72(1), 112-124, doi: 10.17218/hititsosbil.473413. google scholar
2. Allen, C. & Clouth, S. (2012). Green Growth, and Low-Carbon Development history, definitions and a guide to recent publications. A guidebook to the Green Economy. Issue 1: Green Economy, UN Division for Sustainable Development, UNDESA. google scholar
3. Barlas, N. (2013). Environmental Problems of Our Age from Global Crises to Sustainable Society. 1. Edition. İstanbul: Boğaziçi University. google scholar
4. Bowen, A. (2012). Green growth: what does it mean. Environmental Scientist, 12, 6-11. google scholar
5. Cole, M. A. (2006), Economic growth and the environment, (Ed.) G. Atkinson, S. Dietz, and E. Neumayer, Handbook of Sustainable Development, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 240- 53. google scholar
6. Diniz, E.M. & Bermann, C. (2012). Green economy and sustainability. Estudos Avançados. 26(74), 323-329. google scholar
7. EEA (2012). Environmental indicator report 2012 — Ecosystem resilience and resource efficiency in a green economy in Europe. European Environment Agency. google scholar
8. Ela, M., Doğan, A. & Uçar, O. (2018). Comparison of macroeconomic performances of European Union countries and Turkey with TOPSIS method. Journal of Osmaniye Korkut Ata University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 2(2), 129-143 google scholar

9. Engin, E. & Akgöz, B. (2013). Evaluation of the Concept of Corporate Social Responsibility in the Framework of Sustainable Development and Corporate Sustainability. Selcuk Communication, 8 (1), 85-94. google scholar
10. Eurostat, (2022). https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/sdi/indicators google scholar
11. Eyüboğlu, K. (2017). Comparison of developing countries' macro performances with AHP and TOPSIS method. Çankırı Karatekin University Journal of the Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 6(1), 131-146. https://doi.org/10.18074/cnuiibf.278 google scholar
12. Farman, J. C., Gardiner, B. G., & Shannklin, J. D. (1985). Large losses of total ozone in Antarctica reveal seasonal ClOx/NOx interaction. Nature, 315, pp. 207-10, doi:10.1038/315207a0. google scholar
13. Figuera J., Greco, S., & Ehrgott M. (2005). Multiple criteria decision analysis, state of the art surveys, Springer, New York google scholar
14. Gladwin, T. N., Kennelly, J. J., & Krause, T. S. (1995). Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: Implications for management theory and research. Academy of management Review, 20(4), 874907. google scholar
15. Green Policy Platform (2022). Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/sdi/indicators. google scholar
16. IULA-EMME. (1997). Local Agenda 21, Development of Local Agenda 21in Turkey Project News Release, Issue 1, Istanbul. google scholar
17. Karacan, A. R. (2013). Environmental Economy and Policy, Economy, Policy, International and National Environmental Protection Initiatives. Extended 2. Edition. İzmir: Ege University Printing House. google scholar
18. Kararach, G., Nhamo, G., Mubila, M., Nhamo, S. Nhamechena, C., & Babu, S. (2018). Reflections on the green growth index for developing countries: a focus of selected African countries. Development Policy Review, 36,432-454. google scholar
19. Kersuliene, V. & Turskis, Z. (2011). Integrated fuzzy multiple criteria decision making model for architect selection. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 17(4), 645-666. google scholar
20. Koca, E. B. & Tunca, M. Z. (2019). Evaluation of Economic Performance of G20 Countries by Gray Relational Analysis Method. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 11(28), 348-357. https://doi.org/10.20875/makusobed.541005 google scholar
21. Markandya, A., Harou, P., Bellu, L. G., & Cistulli, V. (2002). Environmental Economics for Sustainable Growth: A Handbook for Practitioners. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. google scholar
22. Munasinghe, M. (1993). Environmental Economics and Sustainable Development. The World Bank, Washington, D.C. google scholar
23. Munasinghe, M. (2001). Sustainable development and climate change: applying the sustainomics transdisciplinary meta-framework. International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, 1(1), 1355. doi:10.1504/IJGENVI.2001.000970. google scholar
24. Munasinghe, M. (2009). Sustainable Development in Practice: Sustainomics Methodology and Applications. Cambridge University Press, New York. google scholar
25. Nahman, A., Mahumani, B. K., & De Lange, W. J. (2016). Beyond GDP: towards a green economy index. Development Southern Africa, 33(2), 215-233. doi:10.1080/0376835X.2015.1120649 google scholar
26. OECD (2010). OECD Multilingual Towards Green Growth Summary in Turkish. Retrieved from www. oecd.org/greengrowth/48060835.pdf (14.05.2018). google scholar
27. Ohring, G., Boykov, R. D., Bolle, H.-J., Hudson, R. D., & Volkert, H. (2009). Radiation and Ozone. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 90(11), pp. 1 669-81, doi:10.1175/2009BAMS2766.1. google scholar
28. Orhan, M. (2020). Comparison of the macroeconomic performances of the European Union countries and the candidate countries for the European Union membership with the Aras method. Journal of Humanities and Tourism Research, 10(1), 115-129. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/johut/ issue/54220/733076 google scholar
29. Özbek, A. & Demirkol, İ. (2019). Comparison of the economic indicators of the European Union countries and Turkey. Management and Economics: Journal of Celal Bayar University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 26(1), 71-91. https://doi.org/10.18657/yonveek.418796 google scholar
30. Sevgin, H. & Kundakcı, N. (2017). Ranking of EU member countries and Turkey according to economic indicators using TOPSIS and MOORA methods. Anadolu University Journal of Social Sciences, 17(3), 87-108. https://doi.org/10.18037/ausbd.417281 google scholar
31. Soubbotina, T. P., & Sheram, K. (2000). Beyond economic growth: Meeting the challenges of global development. World Bank Publications. google scholar
32. Soussan, J.G. (1992). Sustainable Development: Environmental Issues in the 1990s. Essex: John Wiley Sons Publication. google scholar
33. UN (2014). Conference of European Statisticians Recommendations on Measuring Sustainable Development, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. Prepared in cooperation with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the Statistical Office of the European Union (Eurostat). New York and Geneva, Retrieved from https://digitallibrary.un.org/ record/787789 google scholar
34. UNEP (2011). Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication. Retrieved from http://www.unep.org/greeneconomy/portals/88/documents/ger/ GreenEcon omyReport.pdf google scholar
35. U NESCAP (2012). Green growth, resources and resilience, environmentally sustainable in Asia and the Pacific. United Nations and Asian Development Bank Publication, Bangkok. google scholar
36. United Nations (1992, 3-14 June). Conference on Environment and Development. Retrieved from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf google scholar
37. Urdan, M. S. & Luoma, P. (2020). Designing effective sustainability assignments: How and why definitions of sustainability impact assignments and learning outcomes. Journal of Management Education, 44(6), 794-821. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562920946798 google scholar
38. World Bank (2012). Inclusive Green Growth, The Path way to Sustainable Development: Washington D.C. google scholar
39. World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. Retrieved from http://www.undocuments.net/our-common-future.pdf google scholar
40. Yalcin, A. Z. (2016). Green economy thinking and financial policies for sustainable development. Çankırı Karatekin University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences Journal, 6(1), 749775. google scholar
41. Yeni, O. (2014). Sustainability and Sustainable Development: A Literature Review. Gazi University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences Journal, 16 (3), 181-208. google scholar
42. Yilmaz, V. (2018). The Relationship Between Sustainable Development and Green Growth. Journal of International Management, Educational and Economics Perspectives, 6(2), (2018) 79-89. google scholar