Sürdürülebilirlik Dönüşümleri ve Ekonomik Uygulanabilirlik: Norveç ve Çin’den Karşılaştırmalı Bulgular

Yıl 2025, Sayı: Özel Sayı 3, 334 - 344, 31.12.2025

Endi Hasanaj , Ebru Z. Boyacioğlu

https://doi.org/10.33203/mfy.1830938

Öz

Bu çalışma, Schumpeter’in yaratıcı yıkım teorisi çerçevesinde sürdürülebilirlik dönüşümlerinin ekonomik uygulanabilirliğinin kurumsal ve politik düzenlemeler tarafından nasıl şekillendirildiğini incelemektedir. İki ulusal stratejinin karşılaştırmalı vaka analizi yapılan çalışmada, Norveç’in talep odaklı elektrikli araçlara geçiş süreci ile Çin’in arz odaklı güneş enerjisi üretim stratejisi ele alınmıştır. Bulgulara göre; Norveç sürdürülebilirlik ve ekonomik uygulanabilirliği, tüketici teşvikleri ve uzun vadeli politika istikrarı ile sağlarken, Çin; endüstriyel koordinasyon, ölçek büyümesi ve maliyet düşüşleri ile gerçekleştirmiştir. Çalışma, iki ülkede uygulanan yöntemlerin farklı olmasına rağmen, teknolojik dönüşüm ve rekabetçiliğin kendiliğinden gelişmediğini, tutarlı ve uzun vadeli politika tercihleriyle şekillendiğini göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Sürdürülebilirlik , Yaratıcı Yıkım , Ekonomik Uygulanabilirlik , Norveç , Çin

Etik Beyan

Sayın Editör, Sunmuş olduğumuz çalışma, etik kurul izni gerektiren herhangi bir birincil veri toplama süreci içermemektedir. Araştırma tamamen karşılaştırmalı analiz niteliğinde olup, ikincil veri kaynaklarına (uluslararası istatistik kurumlarının verileri, resmi politika belgeleri, akademik literatür ve kamuya açık raporlar) dayanmaktadır. Çalışmada anket, görüşme, deneysel uygulama, katılımcı gözlem veya kişisel veri içeren herhangi bir birincil veri toplama yöntemi kullanılmamıştır. Bunun yanında, çalışma kapsamında insan veya hayvan deneklerle temas eden bir araştırma tasarımı da bulunmamaktadır. Bu nedenle, araştırmanın niteliği gereği etik kurul onayı veya etik beyan formu gerektiren bir durum söz konusu değildir. Kullanılan tüm veriler açık kaynaklardan elde edilmiş olup bilimsel araştırma ve yayın etiği ilkelerine tam uygunluk gözetilmiştir. Bilgilerinize sunarız.

Destekleyen Kurum

-

Teşekkür

-

Sustainability Transitions and Economic Viability: Comparative Insights From Norway and China

Öz

Utilizing the creative destruction framework, this study examines how the economic viability of sustainability transitions evolves across different institutional contexts. Using both qualitative and quantitative data, the study compares two policy architectures: Norway’s demand-driven shift to battery-electric vehicles and China’s supply-focused growth in solar photovoltaic manufacturing. The results show that an institutional design in which regulatory, infrastructural, and fiscal measures interact, combined with consistent policies that earn the public’s and markets’ trust, makes sustainable technologies scalable. Therefore, market maturity and cost reductions are a result of these measures, rather than spontaneous competition – especially in the initial phases of transition.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Sustainability , Creative Destruction , Economic Viability , Norway , China

Etik Beyan

Dear Editor, The submitted manuscript does not require an ethics committee approval, as the study does not involve any form of primary data collection. The analysis is based entirely on secondary data sources, including publicly available statistical datasets, official policy documents, international reports, and peer-reviewed academic literature. No surveys, interviews, experiments, participant observations, or procedures involving human or animal subjects were conducted within the scope of this research. Accordingly, the study does not engage with personal data nor any methodology that would necessitate ethical review under institutional or national guidelines. All data used are publicly accessible, and the research adheres fully to established principles of academic integrity and research ethics.

Destekleyen Kurum

-

Teşekkür

-

Kaynakça

• Aasness, M. A., & Odeck, J. (2015). The increase of electric vehicle usage in Norway—Incentives and environmental impacts. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 39, 31–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.06.007
• Acemoglu, D., Aghion, P., Bursztyn, L., & Hemous, D. (2012). The environment and directed technical change. American Economic Review, 102(1), 131–166. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.102.1.131
• Acemoglu, D., & Johnson, S. (2023). Power and progress: Our thousand-year struggle over technology and prosperity. PublicAffairs.
• Aghion, P., Hepburn, C., Teytelboym, A., & Zenghelis, D. (2019). Path dependence, innovation, and the economics of climate change. In R. Fouquet (Ed.), Handbook on green growth (pp. 1–24). Edward Elgar.
• Aghion, P., & Howitt, P. (1992). A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica, 60(2), 323–351. https://doi.org/10.2307/2951599
• Akcigit, U., & Aghion, P. (2021). The Schumpeterian growth paradigm. Annual Review of Economics, 13, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-051520-025826
• Akcigit, U., & van Reenen, J. (2023). The economics of creative destruction. Harvard University Press.
• Aldy, J. (2023). Evaluating the economic and environmental impacts of the Inflation Reduction Act. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity.
• Banerjee, A. V., & Duflo, E. (2011). Poor economics: A radical rethinking of the way to fight global poverty. PublicAffairs.
• International Energy Agency. (2025). Global EV Outlook 2025: Electric vehicle charging. https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2025/electric-vehicle-charging
• International Renewable Energy Agency. (2021). Renewable power generation costs in 2020. https://www.irena.org
• International Renewable Energy Agency. (2023). Renewable power generation costs in 2022. https://www.irena.org
• IEA Policies Database. (2021). Golden Sun Programme (China). https://www.iea.org/policies/4992-golden-sun-programme
• Kim, H., & Kim, Y. (2020). Green industrial policy and energy transition in South Korea. Energy Policy, 144, 111610.
• Kotilainen, K., Lanz, B., & Schäfer, A. (2019). Charging infrastructure and electric vehicle adoption in the Nordic countries. Energy Policy, 132, 124–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.05.043
• Lanz, B., van der Werff, E., & Schmidt, T. S. (2022). The levelised cost of electric vehicle charging across Europe. Energy Economics, 108, 105–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2022.105117
• Meckling, J., & Nahm, J. (2022). The politics of technology-led climate strategies: Industrial policy, market creation, and decarbonization. Review of International Political Economy, 29(5), 1579–1606.
• Mersky, A. C., Sprei, F., Samaras, C., & Qian, Z. S. (2016). Effectiveness of incentives on electric vehicle adoption in Norway. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 46, 56–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2016.03.011
• Nordhaus, W. D. (2015). Climate clubs: Overcoming free-riding in international climate policy. American Economic Review, 105(4), 1339–1370. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.15000001
• Norwegian Government (Regjeringen). (2022). National charging strategy. https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/national-charging-strategy/id2950371/
• Norwegian Government (Regjeringen). (2024, November 29). Notification: Prolongation of VAT benefits for battery-electric passenger vehicles. https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/48c034b961c64d009eab5470dd565985/notification-prolongation-of-vat-benefits-for-battery-electric-passenger-vehicles-pdf-29.11.2024.pdf
• OECD. (2021). Norway’s evolving incentives for zero-emission vehicles. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2021/09/ipac-policies-in-practice_1a65968e/norway-s-evolving-incentives-for-zero-emission-vehicles_c74c1e9d.html
• Opplysningsrådet for veitrafikken (OFV). (2025). The Norwegian car market 2024. https://opplysningsraadet-for-veitrafikk-ofv.s3.amazonaws.com/pdf/Bil%C3%A5ret-2024_Norwegian-Car-Market-2024_English-version.pdf
• Ragin, C. (1987). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. University of California Press.
• Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. Harper & Brothers.
• Ye, L., Tiong, R. L. K., & Wang, S. (2017). Analysis of feed-in tariff policies for solar photovoltaic in China, 2011–2016. Applied Energy, 203, 469–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.06.043
• Zhang, S., & He, Y. (2022). Industrial policy, cost declines, and the evolution of China’s solar PV industry. Energy Research & Social Science, 89, 102533.
• Yin, R. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Sage Publications.