Politická ekonomie 2025, 73(6):1015-1033 | DOI: 10.18267/j.polek.1473

Evaluation of Sustainable Economic Growth in Nordic Countries Based on the Ecological Growth Model

Yaşar Turna ORCID...
Yaşar Turna, Pamukkale University, Çivril Atasay Kamer Vocational High School, Department of Finance, Banking and Insurance, Çivril, Denizli, Turkey

The structure of the consumer society that has emerged in the world since the 1950s has led to an increase in the impact of economic activities on the environment. Recently, the incidence rates of various diseases have increased, especially in Eastern Europe , owing to environmental pollution and degradation. Therefore, this study aims to explain the impact of economic activities on the environment in Nordic countries using an ecological growth model. This study analyses causality relationships based on data on economic growth, capital accumulation, employment level, energy consumption, carbon dioxide emissions, carbon dioxide emissions, renewable energy production, environmental taxes, waste amounts and climate change in Nordic countries between 1995 and 2022. The analysis reveals a unidirectional causality relationship between economic growth and capital accumulation, energy consumption, carbon dioxide emissions, environmental taxes, air pollution, renewable energy and climate change in Nordic countries.

Keywords: Sustainable economic growth, ecological growth model, panel data analysis, environment and growth
JEL classification: C23, O44, Q01, Q57

Received: May 14, 2024; Revised: October 13, 2024; Accepted: November 18, 2024; Published: December 9, 2025  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Turna, Y. (2025). Evaluation of Sustainable Economic Growth in Nordic Countries Based on the Ecological Growth Model. Politická ekonomie, 73(6), 1015-1033. doi: 10.18267/j.polek.1473
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Acaravci, A., Bozkurt, C., Erdoğan, S. (2015). MENA Ülkelerinde Demokrasi-Ekonomik Büyüme İlişkisi. İşletme Ve İktisat Çalişmalari Dergisi, 3(4), 119-129.
    2. Ağaoğlu, N. (2023). Sürdürülebilir Kalkinma Bağlaminda Büyümeme ve Yeşil Büyüme. Academic Review of Humanities and Social Sciences, 6(2), 83-105. https://doi.org/10.54186/arhuss.1204495 Go to original source...
    3. Alataş, S., Peker, O. (2016). Kurumsal kalite ve gelir: panel veri analizi. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 17(2), 61-79. https://doi.org/10.17494/ogusbd.281805 Go to original source...
    4. Ateş, S. A., Ateş, M. (2015). Sosyo-ekolojik dönüşüm karşisinda Türkiye: Bir alternatif olarak yeşil büyüme. Siyaset, Ekonomi ve Yönetim Araştirmalari Dergisi, 3(4), 69-94.
    5. Aydin, B. (2021). Kalkinma Literatüründen Hareketle Enerji-Büyüme İlişkisi. Finans Ekonomi ve Sosyal Araştirmalar Dergisi, 6(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.29106/fesa.770344 Go to original source...
    6. Bayraktutan, Y., Uçak, S. (2011). Ekolojik İktisat ve Kalkinmanin Sürdürülebilirliği. Akademik Araştirmalar ve Çalişmalar Dergisi (AKAD), 3(4), 17-36.
    7. Berber, M., Yilmaz, M. S., Yildiz, B. (2023). 21. Yüzyilda Sürdürülebilir Büyüme Anlayişi Değişiyor mu? Akademik Yaklaşimlar Dergisi, 14(2), 621-650. https://doi.org/10.54688/ayd.1358872 Go to original source...
    8. van den Bergh, J. C. (2001). Ecological economics: themes, approaches, and differences with environmental economics. Regional Environmental Change, 2, 13-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s101130000020 Go to original source...
    9. Costanza, R., Perrings, C., Cleveland, C. J. (1997). The development of ecological economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. ISBN 978-1-85898-386-8. Go to original source...
    10. Costanza, R., Cumberland, J. H., Daly, H., et al. (1997). An introduction to ecological economics. Boca Raton: CRC Press. Go to original source...
    11. Daly, H., Goodland, R. (1994). An ecological-economic assessment of deregulation of international commerce under GATT Part I. Population and Environment, 15, 395-427. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02208320 Go to original source...
    12. Energy Institute (2024). Statistical Review of World Energy. [Retrieved 2024-06-29] Available at: https://www.energyinst.org/statistical-review
    13. Gençoğlu, P., Kuşkaya, S., Büyüknalbant, T. (2020). Seçilmiş OECD Ülkelerinde Sağlik Harcamalarinin Sürdürülebilirliğinin Panel Birim Kök Testleri İle Değerlendirilmesi. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 75(4), 1283-1297. https://doi.org/10.33630/ausbf.498440 Go to original source...
    14. Gowdy, J., Erickson, J. D. (2005). The approach of ecological economics. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 29(2), 207-222. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bei033 Go to original source...
    15. Göçer, İ., Mercan, M., Hotunluoğlu, H. (2012). Seçilmiş OECD ülkelerinde cari işlemler açiğinin sürdürülebilirliği: Yatay kesit bağimliliği altinda çoklu yapisal kirilmali panel veri analizi. Maliye Dergisi, 163, 449-467.
    16. Grzebyk, M., Stec, M. (2023). The level of renewable energy used in EU member states - A multidimensional comparative analysis. Economics and Environment, 86(3), 244-264. https://doi.org/10.34659/eis.2023.86.3.558 Go to original source...
    17. Hannerz, M., Nohrstedt, H. Ö., Roos, A. (2014). Research for a bio-based economy in the forest sector-a Nordic example. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 29(4), 299-300. Go to original source...
    18. Hansen, A. C., Clarke, N., Hegnes, A. W. (2021). Managing sustainability risks of bioenergy in four Nordic countries. Energy, Sustainability and Society, 11(1), 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-021-00290-9 Go to original source...
    19. Irandoust, M. (2016). The renewable energy-growth nexus with carbon emissions and technological innovation: Evidence from the Nordic countries. Ecological Indicators, 69, 118-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.03.051 Go to original source...
    20. Kapçak, S. (2023). Gelişmekte Olan Ülkelerde Yenilenebilir-Yenilenemeyen Enerji Tüketiminin Ekonomik Büyümeye Etkisi: Sakli Eş Bütünleşme Yaklaşimi. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 32(2), 409-423. https://doi.org/10.35379/cusosbil.1240166 Go to original source...
    21. Kartal, Z. (2007). Gelişme ve Ekolojik Modeller. Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / Journal of Social Sciences, 31(2).
    22. Koçbulut, Ö., Altintaş, H. (2016). İkiz Açiklar ve Feldstein-Horioka Hipotezi: OECD Ülkeleri Üzerine Yatay Kesit Bağimliliği Altinda Yapisal Kirilmali Panel Eşbütünleşme Analizi. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 48, 145-174.
    23. Kurucu, A. A. (2016). Yenilebilir Enerji Örneği Üzerinden Ekolojik Modernleşme Kurami Tartişmasi. Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi (Ankara University Journal of Social Sciences), 7(2). Go to original source...
    24. £uczak, A., Kalinowski S. (2022). A multidimensional comparative analysis of poverty statuses in European Union countries. International Journal of Economic Sciences, 11(1), 146-160. https://doi.org/10.52950/ES.2022.11.1.009 Go to original source...
    25. Midttun, A., Olsson, L. (2018). Eco-modernity Nordic style: The challenge of aligning ecological and socio-economic sustainability. In: Eitoszek, N., Midttun, A. Sustainable modernity, pp. 204-228. London: Routledge. ISBN: 978-1315195964. Go to original source...
    26. Midttun, A., Kamfjord, S. (1999). Energy and environmental governance under ecological modernization: A comparative analysis of Nordic countries. Public Administration, 77(4), 873-895. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9299.00184 Go to original source...
    27. Nordic Statistics (2024). Nordic Statistics Database: Envrionment and Energy. [Retrieved 2024-10-03] Available at: https://www.nordicstatistics.org/areas/environment-and-energy
    28. Rees, W. E. (2003). Economic development and environmental protection: an ecological economics perspective. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 86, 29-45. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024098417023 Go to original source...
    29. Şahin, G. (2022). Ekolojik Modernleşme Teorisi ve Çevre Politikasi Çikarimlari. Pearson Journal, 7(21), 236-257. https://doi.org/10.46872/pj.603 Go to original source...
    30. Taşdemir, S. Z. (2021). Ekonomi-ekoloji etkileşimi: Neoklasik çevre iktisadi ile ekolojik iktisadi düşünce birbirini tamamliyor mu? Ekonomi Politika ve Finans Araştirmalari Dergisi, 6(2), 356-370. https://doi.org/10.30784/epfad.896292 Go to original source...
    31. Tatoğlu, F. Y. (2020). Panel Zaman Serileri Analizi Stata Uygulamali, 3rd ed.
    32. The Conference Board (2024). Total Economy Database. [Retrieved 2024-06-29] Available at: https://www.conference-board.org/data/economydatabase
    33. Tilsted, J. P., Bjørn, A., Majeau-Bettez, G., et al. (2021). Accounting matters: Revisiting claims of decoupling and genuine green growth in Nordic countries. Ecological Economics, 187, 107101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107101 Go to original source...
    34. Turna, B., Polat, F. (2024). The Effect of Macro-Economic Indicators on Voter Behavior in Turkey: An Analysis on General and Local Elections of 1980-2019. Journal of Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Economics and Administrative Sciences Faculty, 11(1), 153-171. https://doi.org/10.30798/makuiibf.1220288 Go to original source...
    35. Uddin, G. A., Alam, K., Gow, J. (2019). Ecological and economic growth interdependency in the Asian economies: an empirical analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26, 13159-13172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-04791-1 Go to original source...
    36. Ulucak, R. (2018). İktisatta çevreci dönüşüm: Ekolojik makro iktisat. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 51, 127-149. https://doi.org/10.18070/erciyesiibd.402928 Go to original source...
    37. Urfalioğlu, Ş. (2022). Panel Nedensellik Testleri Wagner Hipotezi'nin Geçerliliğinin Analizi. Yayimlanmamiş Yüksek Lisans Tezi.
    38. Uysal, Ö. (2013). Sürdürülebilir büyüme kavraminin çevre ve ekonomik boyutlarinin ayriştirilmasi. Uluslararasi Alanya Işletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 5(2), 111-118.
    39. Yağlikara, A. (2022). Ekolojik Modernizasyon Teorisi ile Kentleşme ve CO2 Emisyonu İlişkisinin İncelenmesi: Yüksek Gelir Grubu Ülkeleri Örneklem. In: Şahin, K. Ekonomi ve Finans Alanindaki Uygulamalarin Ampirik Sonuçlari, pp. 285-296. Bursa: Ekin Yayinevi.
    40. Yaman, H., Sungur, O. (2020). İleri teknoloji ihracati ve büyüme ilişkisi: OECD ülkelerine yönelik ekonometrik bir analiz. Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 20(1), 63-80. https://doi.org/10.11616/basbed.v20i53206.645139 Go to original source...
    41. Yildiz, G. A., Yildiz, B. (2022). Çevresel Sürdürülebilirlik Çerçevesinde Ekolojik Ayak İzi Ve Ekonomik Büyüme İlişkisi: Türkiye Üzerine Ampirik Bir Analiz. Sayiştay Dergisi, 33(126), 473-498. https://doi.org/10.52836/sayistay.1145290 Go to original source...

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY NC ND 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content