Sustainable Economies: The Case of Turkish Economy within - DiVA

Examensarbete i Hållbar Utveckling 105

Sustainable Economies: The Case of Turkish Economy within Steady-State Economics


Evrim Demirel

Evrim Demirel

Uppsala University, Department of Earth SciencesMaster Thesis E, in Sustainable Development, 30 creditsPrinted at Department of Earth Sciences,Geotryckeriet, Uppsala University, Uppsala, 2012.

Master’s ThesisE, 30 credits

Supervisor: Eva Friman Evaluator: Leif Bratt

Examensarbete i Hållbar Utveckling 105


Evrim Demirel

Content Content .....................................................................................................................................................................

Abstract ....................................................................................................................................................................

Summary ..................................................................................................................................................................

List of Figures ..........................................................................................................................................................

List of Tables ...........................................................................................................................................................

1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Aim and Research Questions ....................................................................................................................... 1

1.2. Method ......................................................................................................................................................... 2

1.3. Selection of the Case and Data, Limitations, Scope .................................................................................... 2

2. Literature Analysis and Historical Background ............................................................................................ 3

2.1. Discussions on Growth, Limits of Growth and Steady-State Economics .................................................... 3

2.1.1. Classical Economists’ Thoughts on Growth and Steady-State ............................................................. 3

2.1.1. Discussions on Growth after the Classical School of Economics ........................................................ 4

2.1.2. Discussions on Growth in the Post World War II Period ..................................................................... 4

2.1.3. Contemporary Criticism of Growth and the Emergence of Steady-State Economics .......................... 4

2.1.4. The Emergence of Sustainable Development and Current Growth Discussions .................................. 5

3. The Concept of Steady-State Economics ......................................................................................................... 6

3.1. Herman Daly’s Criticism on Growth ........................................................................................................... 6

3.2. Approaching the Relationship between Economy and the Environment within Ecological Economics ..... 6

3.3. The Concept and Working of Steady-State Economics ............................................................................... 8

3.4. Transition towards Steady-State Economy ................................................................................................ 10

3.4.1. Limiting Resource Use and Waste Production ................................................................................... 10

3.4.2. Stabilising Population and Consumption per Capita .......................................................................... 11

3.4.3. Distributing Income and Wealth......................................................................................................... 12

4. Assessing the Turkish Economy within Steady-State Economics ............................................................... 12

4.1. Growth as an Indicator of Economic Activity in Turkey ........................................................................... 12

4.2. Resource Use in the Turkish Economy ...................................................................................................... 13

4.2.1. Sectoral Energy Consumption in the Turkish Economy .................................................................... 14

4.2.2.1. Total and Sectoral GHG Emissions in the Turkish Economy ......................................................... 16

4.2.3. Estimations and Policies on Energy Consumption in Turkey ............................................................ 18

4.3. Stabilizing Population and Consumption per Capita ................................................................................. 19

4.3.1 Population Growth in Turkey .............................................................................................................. 19

4.3.2. Consumption per Capita in Turkey .................................................................................................... 20

4.4. Income Distribution in the Turkish Economy............................................................................................ 21

5. Analyzing The Case: Discussion and Suggestions ........................................................................................ 23

6. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................... 24

7. Acknowledgement ........................................................................................................................................... 25

8. References ........................................................................................................................................................ 26

Sustainable Economies: The Case of Turkish Economy within Steady-State Economics EVRİM DEMİREL Demirel, E., 2012, Sustainable Economies: The Case of Turkish Economy within Steady-State Economics. Master thesis in Sustainable Development at Uppsala University, No. 105, 30 pp., 30 ECTS/hp Abstract: The main aim of this paper is to reveal if development and current state of the Turkish Economy are sustainable. Instead of the research tools offered in environmental economics, the holistic approach of ecological economics is used to answer this question. Within that context, the Turkish Economy is assessed within the concept of steady-state economics. Having assessed the data related to the three institutional changes suggested within the concept, this study shows the obstacles and advantages of the Turkish Economy to move towards the steady-state, in other words, sustainability. Keywords: Sustainable Development, Ecological Economics, Steady-state Economics, Sustainable Economies Evrim Demirel, Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University, Villavägen 16, SE- 752 36 Uppsala, Sweden

Sustainable Economies: The Case of Turkish Economy Within Steady-State Economics EVRİM DEMİREL Demirel, E., 2012, Sustainable Economies: The Case of Turkish Economy within Steady-State Economics. Master thesis in Sustainable Development at Uppsala University, No. 105, 30 pp., 30 ECTS/hp Summary: Economies are a sub-system of the ecosystem in their physical dimensions. Accordingly, economies obtain natural resources that are needed in economic processes from the environment and then return them as waste materials back to it. This process does not only constitute the underlying dynamic of the relation between environment and economy, it also reveals how economies are bilaterally dependent on the environment. Thus, as a sub-system of the ecosystem, all economies are limited by the regeneration capacity and waste absorption speed of the environment. Therefore, economy-environment relationship and environmental problems should not only be discussed as a pricing problem in the discipline of economics, instead, they should be discussed within a more holistic approach. The concept of steady-state economics which is developed within ecological economics enables to carry out such an assessment. Within this context, Turkish Economy has been analyzed within that concept in this paper. In parallel with this purpose, current state and development of the economy have been compared with the ideal sustainable economy by assessing the indicators related to institutional changes proposed in that concept. Keywords: Sustainable Development, Ecological Eonomics, Steady-state Economics, Sustainable Economies Evrim Demirel, Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University, Villavägen 16, SE- 752 36 Uppsala, Sweden

List of Figures

Figure 1. Empty World ........................................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 2. Full World................................................................................................................................................ 7 Figure 3. Economy As Isolated System .................................................................................................................. 8 Figure 4. Economy and Environment in Steady-State Economics .......................................................................... 9 Figure 5. GDP by Production Approach by Kind of Main Economic Activity in Constant Prices (1987) in Turkey, 1990-2006 ................................................................................................................................................ 13 Figure 6. Primary Energy Resources Consumption in Turkey (1990-2010) ......................................................... 14 Figure 7. Final Sectoral Energy Consumption in Turkey (1990-2010) ................................................................. 15 Figure 8. Development Trend of GHG Emissions in Turkey (1990-2009) ........................................................... 16 Figure 9. Contribution of Natural Resources Used to CO2 Emissions in Turkey (1990-2009) ............................ 17 Figure 10. Sectoral CO2 Emissions in Turkey (1990-2009) .................................................................................. 17 Figure 11. Population Growth and Estimated Population in Turkey (1990-2025) ................................................ 19 Figure 12. Population Growth Rate and Expected Growth Rate in Turkey (1990-2025) ..................................... 19 Figure 13. Final Private Consumption per Capita in Turkey (1987=100) ............................................................. 20 Figure 14. Change in Ecological Footprint and Biocapacity in Turkey (1960-2007) ........................................... 21 Figure 15. Distribution of Household Disposable Income as Groups of 20% in the Turkish Economy (2002-2009) ..................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 16. Gini Coefficient in OECD Countries ................................................................................................... 22 List of Tables Table 1. Change in Gini Coefficient Over Years in Turkey (1985-2009) ............................................................. 22

Abbrevations CASSE: Center for the Advancement of Steady State Economics EC: European Commission EIE: General Directorate of Electric Power Resources Survey and Development Administration EMRA: Republic of Turkey Energy Market Regulatory Authority EU: European Union GDP: gross domestic products GHG: greenhouse gases GWH: gigawatt hour IEA: International Energy Agency IMF: International Monetary Fund ISEE: The International Society for Ecological Economics MENR: Republic of Turkey Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources MIT: Massachusetts Institute of Technology OECD: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development SEEA: System of Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounts TOE: Tonne of oil equivalent TURKSTAT: Turkish Statistical Institute UN: United Nations WB: The World Bank WCED: The World Commission on Environment and Development

1

1. IntroductionGrowth has been one of the major concerns in the discipline of economics for a long time. Despite the fact that its ideological roots can be traced to the 14th century, when Ibn Khaldun wrote Muqaddimah, emergence of the thoughts shaping conventional growth conception is based on the criticism of mercantilism, Physiocrats’ and Adam Smith’s thoughts on growth. Affluence and welfare became frequently-cited issues in the period between the mid-1700s and late-1800s when Industrial Revolution began and Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations got published. Since then to increase economic activity and welfare, determinants of these and their effects on the society have been subject to a great number of debates in economics literature.

Due to the fact that environmental problems started to occur after the Industrial Revolution and dramatically increased in the last fifty years; environmental impacts, limits and sustainability of increasing economic activity have been added to debates on growth. In this period, high growth rates and population increase have caused to a substantial raise in natural resource consumption, and therefore to an increase in the amount of waste generation. As a result, human-beings are faced with various environmental problems, notably including energy crises, climate change, loss of biodiversity and deforestation.

Increasing environmental problems have resulted in new approaches, methods and solution suggestions regarding environmental issues in the presence of international organizations and in various disciplines. The economics discipline has been affected by these developments as well. It has become clear that environmental economics, which is a sub-discipline in economics based on the fundamentals of neoclassical economics, does not comprise adequate tools to handle environmental issues and to provide coherent solutions (Venkatachalam, 2007). Therefore, the need for more holistic approaches to handle these issues deepened. As a consequence, ecological economics and various concepts within it have been developed.

Steady-state economics which deals with the relationship between economy and environment within ecological limits and the laws of thermodynamics stands out as the most developed one among the concepts developed in ecological economics. The concept and the institutional changes suggested within it have an importance since they enable to assess the relationship between national economies and environment in a holistic way and at macro level. As environmental problems become more severe each passing year and thereby create a significant economic and social cost for both developed and developing countries, such an assessment becomes even more essential.

The sustainability discussions, the concepts existing in this inter-disciplinary subject and in ecological economics are either unknown or at least recent in Turkey. As one of the most rapidly growing economy in recent years and the 18th largest economy in the world, Turkey urgently needs a holistic assessment regarding environmental impacts and sustainability of its economy and growth (IMF, 2012; WB, 2011). Therefore, in this paper, the development and current situation of Turkish Economy is assessed through the data associated with three institutional changes* existing in the concept of steady-state economics. In this context, data of the Turkish Economy related to growth, natural resource consumption, GHG emissions, population growth, ecological footprint, consumption and income distribution is discussed.

In the introductory chapter of this paper, background of the problem, methods used, the aim and research questions, boundaries and difficulties of this assessment, reasons and manner to assess Turkish Economy are presented. Later on, bases, contents and the institutional changes of steady-state economics and therefore theoretical framework of this study are put forward. In the third chapter, development, changes and the current situation of the Turkish Economy regarding these three institutional changes are presented and interpreted. Finally, possible and applicable policy options and obstacles to move the economy towards steady-state or, in other words a sustainable state are discussed. 1.1. Aim and Research Questions The purpose of this paper is above all to understand current state and development of the Turkish Economy within the concept of steady-state economics and compare that state and the development of it with an ideal sustainable economy put forward within the concept.

This is done by help of the following research aim and questions:

* Limiting resource use and waste production, stabilizing population and consumption per capita and income distribution are the three institutional changes proposed by Herman Daly (1991) and in CASSE (O’Neill, Dietz and Jones, 2010). Turkish Economy is thus assessed within these institutional changes.

http://tureng.com/search/physiocrat

2

1) Analysing historical background and literature of the concept of steady-state economics.

2) How is development and current situation of the Turkish Economy seen through the lens of the indicators that are related to the three institutional changes proposed within steady-state economics?

3) Which obstacles and disadvantages exist against to move the Turkish Economy towards steady-state and thereby making it more sustainable?

4) What kind of policies can be implemented to move the Turkish economy towards steady-state?

Herman Daly (1991, p.52), who has developed the concept of steady-state economics, reflects that it is more essential to implement the transition towards steady-state and then to stabilize the economy at whatever the current state is than to compare the current state of the economy with the optimal steady-state. However, the latter approach is embraced in this paper and Turkish Economy is compared with ideal steady-state due to some reasons in regard to the specificity of the economy and to the concept itself. First of all, there is no national economy where the institutional changes proposed within steady-state economy have completely been implemented yet. Despite that the growth and population growth rates are around 0 % in some developed countries such as Japan, these economies don’t serve as examples of steady-state nor are their current state outcomes of policies implemented to shape the economy within steady-state. Therefore, there is not any national economy that can be taken as a model for stabilizing the speed of economic activity and make a transition towards steady-state. Yet another, and probably the most important reason is to avoid taking the concept as truth but instead to discuss it through a selected economy. Even though the theoretical foundations of the concept are based on physical laws, institutional changes suggested rely on a certain paradigm, thus the concept is always questionable and open for change. For these reasons, in this paper, the current situation and development of Turkish Economy is compared with the ideal steady-state economy and obstacles and possible policy options to move the economy towards steady-state are discussed. 1.2. Method A literature review of the conceptual framework of steady-state economics and data related to indicators of Turkish Economy constitute the method of this study. In that context, the ecological economics’ perspective on the relationship between economy and environment is presented, and the fundamentals and process of steady-state economics are introduced. Besides, three institutional changes developed by Herman Daly and also supported by CASSE determine the framework, while data related to these are provided from various sources such as TurkStat, MENR, WB and IMF. 1.3. Selection of the Case and Data, Limitations, Scope It could perhaps at first seem curious to assess a developing economy like Turkey within steady-state economics. Therefore, this point should be elaborated. It is a true that a transition towards steady-state can only be achieved in some developed economies today. Besides, it is reasonable and more just to start this transition in developed countries at first. As Daly (1991, p.148) expresses “It is absolutely a waste of time as well as morally backward to preach steady-state doctrines to underdeveloped countries before the overdeveloped countries have taken any measure to reduce either their own population growth or the growth of their per-capita resource consumption. Therefore, the steady-state paradigm must first of all be adopted and applied in the overdeveloped countries”. The author continues “That does not mean, however, that the underdeveloped countries can be left out of consideration” (Daly, 1991, p.148). Similarly, Philip Lawn (2010, p.931) argues that developed economies should move towards steady-state within five years, developing economies on the other hand should make this transition within twenty to forty years.

The approach to the Turkish Case in this paper matches with these opinions mentioned above. Because, any proposal that suggests Turkey to immediately move its economy towards steady-state would first contradict with historical facts. Such a suggestion in fact means to propose a developing country not to follow the development path that has been used by today’s developed countries. In other words, this would correspond to Chang’s (2003, pp.127-128) figuration of “throwing away the ladder in front of the developing countries”.

On the other hand, the laws of thermodynamics which constitutes the theoretical foundations of steady-state economics rule in all economies regardless of their level of development. The relationship between economy and environment presented in ecological economics is valid in developed and developing countries alike. In other words, all economies are subsets of the environment and have an input-output relationship with it. All economies eventually need to adapt themselves to regeneration speed of the environment. A developing country like Turkey therefore does not have to be left out of this consideration, as Daly (1991, p.148) mentions. On the contrary, the

3

developing countries should aware that in the near future they would need to re-organize their economies within the limits of environment. These countries can thereby start discussing the sustainability of their growth and possibly measure and plan a set of arrangements for the future. Even though GDP per capita can be seen as below an adequate level in these countries, this fact does not prevent them from reducing income inequality, to keep down population growth and to implement regulations that restrict environmentally unfriendly activities. As a developing country, Turkey also needs to go beyond the tools existing in environmental economics and assess the relationship between its economy and environment through a holistic approach. This approach should be followed by proposing policies to adapt the economy within environmental limits, in other words, sustainability. In that sense, institutional changes suggested in steady-state economics could be a guideline for Turkey and many other developing economies.

Data selection regarding the Turkish Economy is based on data presented by the author in papers about steady-state economics and the three institutional changes proposed. In order to be able to compare these data with each other, so far as possible, only data from 1990 to present are taken into consideration. Firstly, data related to the institutional change of limiting resource use and waste production are presented. Within this context, data regarding growth rate, content and amount of natural resources used, increase in GHG, ecological footprint and biocapacity are selected to assess development of the economy within this institutional change. Growth rate here is selected to understand the amount of material and energy flow, throughput, in the Turkish economy. Besides, content and amount of total natural resource use represent how total resource use and content have changed in Turkey. Data of GHG is selected to present the change in waste generation since there is unfortunately no other related data about the Turkish economy. Ecological footprint and biocapacity is selected as supplementary data to understand environmental effects of economic activity in Turkey.

Developments in the Turkish Economy regarding the second institutional change, namely stabilising population, is represented and discussed through data of population growth and expected trend for future, final consumption and energy consumption per capita. Thereby, increase in number of people and level of consumption is attempted to understand. The final institutional change in steady-state economics, namely distributing income and wealth, emphasize inefficient effects of growth on increasing wealth and the importance of equitable distribution of total production within the society. Developments in the Turkish Economy regarding this are represented by change in percentage distribution of wealth and Gini coefficient*.

In addition to all these indicators, data regarding health care, life expectancy and biodiversity are also vital for an assessment within steady-state economics. However, not only due to the lack of sufficient data but also due to the desire to keep the study within certain boundaries data related to these indicators are not taken into consideration. Instead, indicators that are directly connected to the three institutional changes and that are available to show changes in the last twenty years are presented and analyzed. 2. Literature Analysis and Historical Background

2.1. Discussions on Growth, Limits of Growth and Steady-State Economics 2.1.1. Classical Economists’ Thoughts on Growth and Steady-State Adam Smith and the classical economists often mentioned about increase in welfare, limits of the economy and stationary state in their writings. Although their thoughts on determinants of increase in economic activity differ, they all agree that growth is desirable in order to increase welfare and affluence in the society (Zweig, 1979, p.511). Nevertheless, they were aware of the factors that can limit to increase economic activity such as population growth, natural resource scarcity and decreasing returns and profits. Due to these limiting factors, they reckoned that economic activity couldn’t be constantly increased in long term and economies can face with stationary state which was found undesirable and even catastrophic by them, except John Stuart Mill (Kerschner, 2010, p.545). As distinct from others, Mill (2004, p.331) believed that increase of capital can overcome the negative effects of population increase and therefore argued that human-beings will not face with a possible famine, the catastrophic scenario put forward by Robert Malthus. He argued that stationary state would be beneficial to improve current state of the economy and stated that the main objective in the developed countries

* “The Gini coefficient is a number between zero and one that is a measure of inequality. The meaning of the Gini coefficient is that if the suppliers in a market have near-equal market share, the Gini coefficient is near zero. If most of the suppliers have very low market share but there exist one or a few supplies providing most of the market share then the Gini coefficient is near one” (About.com, 2012).

4

should be to fairly distribute the wealth, not to increase it. According to him, limiting the population growth is the key to achieve this goal (Mill, n.d., p.266, pp.329-330). His thoughts on stationary state and limits of the economy inspired Herman Daly, who developed the concept of steady-state economics. 2.1.1. Discussions on Growth after the Classical School of Economics After Mill, the last classical economist, and the mid-1800s content of these discussions started to change. Rapid technological advancement occurred during and after the Industrial Revolution, the discovery of oil and its usage as an energy source and the following dramatic increase in production played a crucial role in this change. Classical economists’ worries about stationary state and their approach that deals with economy through physical reality were brushed aside; economic activity was dealt as it is not limited by any factor (Kerschner, 2010, p.545). As a result, discussions on the determinants and limits of economic activity lost its significance in the discipline of economics.

Nevertheless, some economists thought about economies in a stationary state in this period. While Joseph Schumpeter emphasized the importance of innovations to quicken a stationary economy, John Maynard Keynes criticized neoclassical economists’ emphasis on the positive effects of technological improvements and defined a quasi-stationary community in where population is stable and employment is full over the generations (Zweig, 1979, p.520; Keynes, 1936). 2.1.2. Discussions on Growth in the Post World War II Period The aim of increasing economic activity became an important economic policy goal and theories and models upon this issue got developed after the World War II. In this period, many countries experienced high growth rates. In parallel to this, especially onwards 1960s and 1970s, discussions on economic activity, on growth after it was conceptualized, revived the issue of how to increase economic activity once again gained an importance in economics. On the other hand, due to the increasing environmental pollution and energy crises occurred, debates on the need and sustainability of growth became a current issue. Ecological economics and the concept of steady-state economics emerged in this period as well.

Proponents of growth in this era argued that growth plays an essential role for social improvements, reducing unemployment and eradicating poverty; and put forward that growth and environmental conservation are compatible policy goals. This opinion is adopted by many countries and international organizations today and constitutes the mainstream paradigm (Commission on Growth and Development, 2008, pp.2-3). Many governments aim to reach high rates of growth due to the belief that growth increases quality of life. Similarly, majority of the scholars working on growth argue that growth should be taken as the most important goal in the process of development (Shin, 1980, pp.199-200).

Besides the increasing importance of growth in the discipline of economics, a paradigm that emphasizes the limits of growth emerged; various organizations started organizing conferences on environmental problems and sustainability of growth. In parallel with the developments in environmental economics, which shares the same premises with neoclassical economics, the field of ecological economics started developing as well. The prime contributions to this emerging field in which neoclassical approach to the relation between environment and economy is criticised and instead more holistic approaches are embraced, were also made in this period. Kenneth Boulding was one of the first contributors to this field. He suggested abandoning the conventional approach in economy policy and argued that natural resource scarcity should constitute the basis of economic analysis of environmental problems (Lavallois, 2010, p.2272). According to him, the emphasis on consumption and production which takes an important place in neoclassical analysis should be replaced by the view defending to preserve the current stock of goods in the economy (Boulding, 1966; Pin and Hutao, 2007). This view provided a basis for the concepts of steady-state economics, degrowth, sustainable growth, zero growth, social growth and sustainable development; however, these concepts rendered it differently and suggested different solution offers as well. 2.1.3. Contemporary Criticism of Growth and the Emergence of Steady-State Economics 1970s were the years when debates on growth and environmental issues were so intensive and the most key contributions to these debates were made. One of most radical contributions was Nicholas Georgescu Roegen’s book titled The Entropy Law and Economic Process. This work and Roegen’s thoughts contributed a lot to the emergence and development of ecological economics, constituted the theoretical basis of Daly’s (1995, pp.150-151) steady-state economics concept.

5

Roegen (1971) emphasized that laws of thermodynamics apply to all economic processes and therefore there are some physical limits that can’t get overcome regardless the level of technological advancement. He argues that entropy, which can be defined as a thermodynamic property or useful energy which is subject to get dissipated during all natural processes, irreversibly increases in all economic processes. Roegen and others supporting this argument defends that scarcity of low entropy energy and materials is the main limit against economic processes and therefore argues that growth is ultimately limited by the increase in entropy (Ekins, 1993, p.272; Pin and Hutao, 2007). Scarce low-entropy natural resources are consumed throughout the economic processes and return to the environment as high entropy output and waste. Thus, using low entropy resources in most efficient and sustainable way should be the fundamental of the concept of efficiency (Pin and Hutao, 2007, p.21). In order to preserve and save the low entropy energy sources for future generations, Roegen (1975, p.367) believes that growth rates should be slowed down (Levallois, 2010, p.2273).

Although Roegen’s thoughts influenced growth debates and ecological economics a lot, The Limits to Growth published by Club of Rome was the study that accelerated these debates at public opinion and political sphere. In the leadership of Donella Meadows from MIT, the research team made projections for future and put forward different scenarios regarding growth. In the report, they emphasized that the most key factors limiting growth are ecological factors and stated “(...) under the circumstances that there will be no vital change in the system, the most possible outcome of reaching to limits of growth is a sudden and uncontrollable drop in population and industrial production” (Meadows, 1972, p.23). Even though their methodology was criticized from many aspects, their report inspired many further studies (Levallois, 2010, p.2275).

In addition to the studies questioning the limits and sustainability of growth, studies approaching with suspicion towards the need of growth and its contribution on welfare increase were put forward in these years as well. The results of these studies, especially Richard Easterlin’s (n.d., pp.118-120), falsified the assumption that growth makes people happier (Xue, 2010, p.5). Various empirical findings obtained in 1970s supported Easterlin’s studies, proved that effect of growth on happiness differ within developed countries (Duncan, 1975, p.267; Shin, 1980, p.216). Besides, studies conducted in the following years showed that effect of growth on happiness can differ in developed and developing countries (Easterlin, 1995, p.42). Proponents of this argument put forward that increase in GDP in poor countries improves happiness, life expectancy and education participation more than it does in developed countries (Jackson, 2009, p. 42, pp.56-58).

Herman Daly was one of the most predominant names during the 1970’s growth discussions. He criticized in his own words “growthmania” in social, ecological and moral respects and put forward stead-state economics as an alternative to it. He discussed growth through the notions of wants and scarcity; emphasized that accepting these as relative or absolute reveals completely different solution offers (Daly, 1974, p.152). While criticizing the modern economic theory for assuming wants as only unlimited and unsatisfiable, the author emphasized the division between relative and absolute scarcity as well (Daly, 1974, p.153). According to the conventional view in natural resource economics, the nature only comprises relative scarcity and there is no absolute scarcity that can’t get overcome (Barnett and Morse, 1963, p.11). On the contrary, Daly (1974, p.152) argues that natural resources are absolutely scarce and this scarcity increases due to an increase in population and consumption. He states that technological progress and pricing are of no use to overcome it, and that the view arguing that scarcity is relative and wants are endless contributes to growthmania (Daly, 1974, pp.152-153). 2.1.4. The Emergence of Sustainable Development and Current Growth Discussions Intensive debates on growth in 1970s did not produce any action plan which all agrees on. Nevertheless, international organizations started involving to these debates and Daly developed the concept of steady-state economics. The first major international conference in which the current environmental problems, population growth and natural resource use were discussed was Stockholm Conference organized in 1972. However, the most significant milestone was the Our Common Future report published by WCED in 1987. In this comprehensive report, social and environmental problems that human-beings face were put forward in detail; the notion of sustainable development were defined for the first time and presented as a common global goal. Accordingly, “sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987, p.43). In the report, WCED (1987, p.43) states that “(...) Thus the goals of economic and social development must be defined in terms of sustainability in all countries - developed or developing, market-oriented or centrally planned. Interpretations will vary, but must share certain general features and must flow from a consensus on the basic concept of sustainable development and on a broad strategic framework for achieving it”. The commission took a milder stand compared to debates and solution offers put forward in 1970’s and therefore their approach was criticized by Daly (1990, p.1) and Roegen. Still, this report has brought a new dimension to the debates on environment and growth, became a guideline for the solution offers regarding environmental issues.

6

Our Common Future was followed by Rio Conference held in 1992 in which environmental problems that human-beings face were repeated and responsibilities of governments were discussed (Xue, 2010, p.12). In parallel, both in Johannesburg Conference held in 2002 and in Climate Change Conference held in 2009 environmental problems were the focal point, growth was only implicitly criticised. Therefore, Our Common Future still remains as the key report regarding the relationship between growth and environmental problems.

Developments and studies put forward in ecological economics remained limited from the end of 1970s until the beginning of 1990s, in other words ecological economics entered to a gestation period, as Ropke (2004, p.293) states. Foundation of ISEE in 1988 made ecological economics institutionalized, while Daly’s writings that are about limits of economy and Robert Costanzo’s studies emphasizing human-beings’ dependency on the ecosystem made the main contributions to this field in 1990’s (Ropke, 2005, pp.266-267). One of the most important development in ecological economics during 2000s was the emergence of degrowth concept. This concept represents “an equitable downscaling of production and consumption that increases human wellbeing and enhances ecological conditions at the local and global level, in the short and long term” (Schneider, Martinez and Kallis, 2010, p.512). Although degrowth is based on the same foundations with steady-state economics, its proponents underlines a necessary and constant downscaling of economic activity. While some scholars judges it as a transition process towards steady-state, others argue that degrowth is the only way to make economies sustainable (Kerschner, 2010).

In 2000s, the most key event related to steady-state economics was the first The Steady-State Conference held in 2010. As a result of it, the report titled Enough is enough: Ideas for a sustainable economy in a world of finite resources got published. In the report, environmental problems caused by growth and the decreasing positive impact of growth on happiness are emphasized. Besides, ten institutional changes to move economies towards steady-state are put forward. The main institutional changes among these are the same with the ones proposed by Herman Daly that are to stabilize population, limiting natural resource use and waste generation and equal income distribution (O’Neill, Dietz, and Jones, 2010). 3. The Concept of Steady-State Economics Although the roots of steady-state economics concept are based on classical economists’, especially Mill’s, thoughts; its formulation was done in 1970s. Daly, who was inspired by Mill and Roegen, emphasized the limits of economy and put forward the concept as an alternative way to growth. 3.1. Herman Daly’s Criticism on Growth Herman Daly, who contributed a lot to 1970’s growth debates, mainly emphasized on limits of economy and growth. The author defined the limits against growth as in physical, biological, economic and social aspects and argued that these limits are subject to physical processes (Daly, 1974, pp.150-151). He believes that the first and second law of thermodynamics, which form a basis for his arguments and steady-state economics, determine the physical limits of the economy. The first law indicates that inexistent energy can’t be created; on the other hand, existential energy and material can’t be dissolved but can be transformed into another form. In this regard, human-beings extract low entropy natural resources, utilize them in economic processes and leave them back as high entropy wastes to the nature. Recycling can only decelerate this process, but can’t stop it. The second law refers to this fact by indicating that increase in entropy is an irreversible process.

In brief, Daly (1974, p.151) argues “Clearly we should stop physical growth at the economic limit. But to recognize that limit at macroeconomic level requires vastly improved economic concepts, theories, and accounting conventions”. He put forward two alternatives regarding this limit “ Either we learn to recognize and institutionalize the economic limit, allowing a considerable safety margin in view of our ignorance, or we adhere to growthmania and leave it to nemesis of social, biological and physical limits to do the job wastefully and without pity”(Daly, 1974, p.152). The first alternative refers to the concept of steady-state economics. Before clarifying the concept, it is essential to understand how relationship between economy and environment is approached within ecological economics. 3.2. Approaching the Relationship between Economy and the Environment within Ecological Economics In the paper titled Steady-State Economics: A New Paradigm, Daly explains in a plain language how the relationship between economy and environment is approached within ecological economics. This approach constitutes the basis of the concept of steady-state economics together with the laws of thermodynamics.

7

Solar Energy Isı

Heat

All economies are a subset of the ecosystem in the sense of physical dimensions (Daly, 1993, p.811). Ecosystem on the other hand is a limited, nongrowing and self-enclosed system. The word of self-enclosed here indicates a system in which matter doesn’t enter nor exit but in which energy enters and exits (Daly, 1993, p.811). This energy is the solar power and it supplies the biogeochemical cycle providing the life on the earth. Within the ecosystem, economy is an open sub-system in which both energy and matter enters from and exits to ecosystem. All physical processes related to the life and economy is dependent on this flow of energy and matter (hereafter throughput) provided from and returning to environment (Daly, 1993, p.811). At this point, Daly compares economy to an animal and states that economy lives off the inputs provided from the environment, just as an animal does (Daly, 1993, p.811). Accordingly, the economy derives the low entropy raw materials and energy from the ecosystem, utilizes and finally leaves them back as high entropy wastes. Rest of the ecosystem, in other words natural capital, absorbs this waste and transforms certain parts of it to utilizable raw materials thanks to the biogeochemical cycle performed by the sun (Daly, 1993, p.811).

The relationships and flows explained above are shown on the Figure 1. “M” and “E” in the figure represent matter and energy, respectively. The figure presents a state in which economic activity continues within the environmental limits, named as “empty world” by Daly. While inner side of the circle represents natural capital, ecosystem in other words, inner side of the square represents the economy or manmade capital.

Figure 1. Empty World

Source: Daly, 1993, p.812

Accordingly, as physical dimensions of the economy expand, it utilizes a bigger percentage of the ecosystem. As a result, the nature’s capacity to provide sources and recycle waste materials diminishes (Daly, 1993, pp.811-812). In other words, the space for biogeochemical cycle, which is vital for the life, becomes smaller. Daly represents this state in which the economy reaches environmental limits as it is shown on the Figure 2 and names it as full world.

Figure 2. Full World

Kaynak: Daly, 1993: 812

Kaynak: Daly, 1993: 812

Solar Energy

I Heat

M M

E E

economy

ECOSYSTEM

recycyle

M M

E E

,

economy

8


As a self-enclosed system, ecosystem is not able to grow in physical dimensions, but is able to develop qualitatively. Therefore, as a subsystem of the ecosystem, economy has to adapt itself to the principle of development without growth (Daly, 1993, p.813). Daly (1993, p.813) argues that the notion of sustainable development should be interpreted as this adaptation. On the contrary, conventional economics or neoclassical economics approaches to the economy as a self-enclosed and isolated system, as can be seen on the Figure 3. In this approach, the economy is only considered as where circular flow of income takes place.

Figure 3. Economy As Isolated System


Although this approach is useful to reveal the income flow between the household and firms, it doesn’t enable to analyze the relationship between economy and environment, and alienates economy for the nature. It implies that the growth is not subject to any limits by approaching to the economy as an independent system (Daly, 1993, p.814). However, when the economy is dealt as a subsystem of the nature which is nongrowing and scarce in terms of resources, these limits of the economy can be clearly understood (Daly, 1993, p.814). Daly (1993, p.814) thus states that the economy should get adapted to steady-state after a certain point, continue growing in terms of quality, not quantity. Scale of such an economy is sized that doesn’t deplete the nature’s regenerative capacity nor pollute it beyond its absorptive capacity (Daly, 1993, p.814). It should develop in aspects of knowledge, organization and efficiency without utilizing more throughput from the nature, on the contrary, the level of throughput should remain at rate that ecosystem can function and regenerate itself. This ideal of steady-state economy refers not to static, but to continuously renewing economy which is a steady-state subsystem with a relationship with the nature at a dynamic equilibrium (Daly, 1993, p.814). 3.3. The Concept and Working of Steady-State Economics Herman Daly was influenced a lot by Mill’s thoughts and Roegen’s flow-fund model while developing the concept of steady-state economics (Kerschner, 2010, p.545). His teacher, Roegen (1970, pp.4-9), mentions about four major magnitudes in the economy, respectively stocks, funds, flows and services while approaching to the economy. In this approach, stocks correspond to natural resources and are used as inputs and are transformed into flows. Flows are used by funds and are turned into useful consumer goods and wastes. The notion of funds here includes human capital, physical capital and land. Capital converts flows into services, as stocks provide flows. Roegen’s approach can be best understood by the example of bakery given by Kerschner. Accordingly, “in a bakery, the baker (human capital, fund) uses a furnace (physical capital, fund) to transform a flow of heat (stock) and flour into a flow of bread and ash (waste) (Kerschner, 2010, p.545). Although Daly was influenced by this approach, he defined services and stocks in a different way, didn’t distinguish flows and funds but put forward the notion of throughput for these instead.

Daly (1991, p.17) defines steady-state economy as “an economy with constant stocks of people and artifacts, maintained at some desired, sufficient levels by low rates of maintenance “throughput”, that is, by the lowest feasible flows of matter and energy from the first stage of production (depletion of low-entropy materials from

Goods and Services

Circular Flow of Income

Factors of Production

Firms Households

9

the environment) to the last stage of consumption (pollution of the environment with high-entropy wastes and exotic materials)”. The expression of desirable here has importance. Because, in order to keep the population constant at a desirable level and to keep the quantity of physical fund stable, birth rate and death rate should be equal and depreciation of physical fund should be compensated by maintenance and production, respectively. One of the most main aim in such an economy is to make life expectancy and durability of physical funds long lasting, in order to keep social and economic cost of production and pollution as low as possible (Daly, 1991, p.17).

Throughput is the key concept in steady-state economics. If matter and energy used in economic activities were abundant, use of these in the economy wouldn’t cost. However, these sources are scarce in the nature and this reality is one of the most important factors determining the limits of economic activity in steady-state economics. As long as the amount of throughput doesn’t exceed the amount provided by renewable and solar energy, it doesn’t create an important cost. However, Daly (1991, p.34) emphasizes that due to the current level of population and consumption human-beings are highly dependent on non-renewables and overexploitation of renewables. Having exploitated low-entropy sources from the nature and left them back to it as high-entropy wastes, human-beings create a bilateral pressure on the environment. As the amount of low-entropy sources used and high-entropy sources created increase, this pressure becomes higher and thus creates a higher social and environmental cost. At that point, Daly (1991, p.34) refers to sustainable development in a way by adding potential capital loss that can be capitalized for future generations needs to these costs.

In the Figure 4, the working of steady-state economy and relationship between major magnitudes in the economy are explained.

Figure 4. Economy and Environment in Steady-State Economics

Kaynak: Daly, 1991: 35 Source: Daly, 1991, p.35

In the figure, the relationship between economy and environment, flow of commodity and energy are put forward as well. In this analysis, Daly (1991, p.35) defines services as satisfaction felt by meeting the wants. Services are provided by economy and environment. In the economy, they are done so through stocks and the intensity of services is determined by the quality and quantity of stocks. Daly (1991, p.35) states that services can’t be measured but the pleasure gained through them can be felt. Accordingly, services are magnitude of flow, but they can’t be accumulated.

On the other hand, stocks include production goods, consumption goods and human existing in the economy (Daly, 1991, p.35). In other words, stocks comprise goods and human capital that meet human needs (Daly, 1974, p.156; Hauser, 1992, p.379). According to Daly (1991, p.35), stocks can be defined as all kind of physical objects that meet human needs and that are subject to ownership. Stocks act as intermediate good by needing

Solar Energy Depletion - Production throughput Heat Pollution - Depreciation

Service

Flux of Service from Flux of Service from Natural Ecosystem Human Economy

Ecosystem

Economy (Stocks)

10

throughput for operation, maintenance and renewal; and by providing services. Throughput is not enough to provide services by itself.

Throughput, which could be the most key magnitude for steady-steady economics, is needed to provide services through stocks. In this sense, throughout can be seen as the cost to sustain and maintain the stocks. It spreads to the entire process of exploiting resources from the nature, production, consumption and waste generation (Hauser, 1992, p.379). This magnitude is closely related to the entropy law, since economic process explained above starts with exploiting low-entropy resources and ends with transforming them into high-entropy wastes. Daly (1974, p.156) thinks that throughput corresponds to GDP since it reflects the change in stocks and flow of energy and matter used for providing services.

To sum up, services are the ultimate utility and throughput is the ultimate cost created by economic activities. Throughput can’t create services itself and is needed to be used as input of stocks in order to provide them (Daly, 1991, p.36). 3.4. Transition towards Steady-State Economy It is quite clear that some certain changes in the current institutions and new institutions are needed to move the economy towards steady-state. Although there are some divergences between the proponents of the concept, there is a generally accepted action plan to make this transition. This plan is put forward at the conference organized by CASSE in 2010 and are mainly based on the institutional changes proposed by Daly since 1970s. Nevertheless, Daly (1991, p.50) indicates that these proposed institutional changes shouldn’t be understood as completed and perfect, and stated that there would be more suitable and applicable ones.

All institutional changes proposed are built on the current price system and private ownership and don’t require any changes within the current economic system. These institutional changes are basically made up of the extension of the execution area of current price system and private ownership (Daly, 1991, p.51). Since price controls can’t prevent the increase in absolute scarcity, planned controls over population and capital stock are practiced through physical quotas.

There are some main principles that should be followed while implementing these institutional changes. First of all, possible negative effects of these changes upon individual freedom should be minimized and planned constraints in the economy should be implemented at macro level, instead of micro (Daly, 1991, p.51; Hauser, 1992, p.384). The aim here is to protect the diversity at micro level while implementing the stabilization at macro level. The second principle is to interspace between carrying capacity of the environment and the effects of environmental pollution. Since it is not possible to accurately measure these two, Daly (1991, p.51) suggests minimizing environmental pollution. The last principle is to understand distinctive circumstances of the economy and to gradually implement the transition with respect to these circumstances.

Regarding to the transition, Daly (1991, p.52) emphasises that it is more important to stabilize the throughput and capital stock in the economy than to define the optimal magnitude of these two: “Stability and viability are more important than, and logically independent of, question of optimality. If we knew the precise optimum without knowing how to be stable at that optimum, it would profit us nothing. If we knew the how to be stable without knowing the precise optimum, it would profit us a great deal. Survival requires limiting physical growth, achieving stability. Optimality is nice, but feasibility is essential. We must learn to be stable at existing or nearby levels, simply because that is where we are. Later we can chase the optimum”. Therefore, Daly believes that the first step is to reach to steady-state and the second step is to understand how far it is from the optimal level.

Based on these principles, there are three main institutional changes to move the economy towards steady-state (O’Neill, Dietz and Jones, 2010; Daly, 1991, p.53). While the first one aims to stabilize the population and consumption per capita, the second one is needed to stabilize the capital stock and keep the magnitude of throughput under the ecological limits. The third one is related to make income distribution more equal and aims to make distribution of goods and services more equal within the society. 3.4.1. Limiting Resource Use and Waste Production The first institutional change proposed within steady-state economics is limiting resource use and waste production in the economy. As a subset of the environment, the economy can only be sustainable as long as throughput is limited according to regenerative and absorptive capacities of the environment (O’Neill, Dietz and Jones, 2010; Daly, 1991, p.43). In order to practice this limitation, resource use and waste production should be dealt within a new approach. The main aim of this institutional change is to limit resource use thanks to especially quotas and various tools, and to efficiently monitor and manage resource use and waste production

11

(O’Neill, Dietz and Jones, 2010; Daly, 1991, p.43). Daly’s (2005) three principles for sustainable resource use is a good directive to achieve this aim. Accordingly, in steady-state economies:

1) Use of all resources should be limited at rates that ultimately result in levels of waste that can be absorbed by the ecosystem.

2) Renewable resources should be exploited at rate that doesn’t exceed the ability of the ecosystem to regenerate the resources.

3) Non-renewable resources should be depleted at rates that, as far as possible, don’t exceed the rate of development of renewable substitutes.

The amount of resource use and waste production in an economy should be set down by scientific data and within these principles. In case of uncertainty about whether resource use and waste production exceed ecological limits, the limitation should be settled thanks to precautionary principle (O’Neill, Dietz and Jones, 2010; Daly, 1991, pp.43-44). According to this principle, necessary measures should be taken regarding negative effects of a certain economic activity, even though the cause and effect relation are not revealed yet (Science & Environmental Health Network, 2012).

In his book titled Steady-State Economics, Daly (1991, p.61) states the following regarding limiting resource use and waste production: “The strategic point at which to impose control on the throughput flow seems to me to be the rate of depletion of resources, particularly non-renewable resources. If we limit aggregate depletion, then, by the law of conservation of matter and energy, we will also indirectly limit aggregate pollution. If we limit throughput flow, then we also indirectly limit the size of the stocks maintained by that flow. Therefore, it physically easier to monitor and control depletion than pollution”. This approach emphasized that environmental problems can be controlled in a most efficient way by limiting natural resource use, not by controlling pollution.

In order to make an implementation regarding these principles, it is essential to have an environmental law enforcing efficient governance and monitoring on resource use and waste production. Measuring the level of throughput in the economy, starting to use green national accounts that include economic and social costs of production to GDP calculations would be useful. In the conference organized by CASSE in 2010, participators agreed on assessing economies within SEEA. In this accounting system, it is aimed to calculate matter and energy consumption and pollution in sectors, the cost and for conservation and environmental governance, and the natural capital in the country and externalities (O’Neill, Dietz and Jones, 2010; Daly, 1991, pp.44-45; UN, et. al., 2003). Such a system of monitoring and governance should also include the possible socio-economic outcomes of the current resource use and planned limitations on it. Therefore, this system should be in-depth and updated as new information get obtained (O’Neill, Dietz and Jones, 2010, p.45). Although implementation of this institutional change at micro level is not put forward in detail, it is clear that individuals should become more conscious regarding environmental problems and resource use. 3.4.2. Stabilising Population and Consumption per Capita Population growth and control have been ongoing issues for a long time. This phenomenon is closely related to migration, poverty, human rights, health, culture and religion; and maybe that is why many avoid approaching to it. In steady-state economics, this is approached within Malthus’ thoughts on population. Accordingly, constant growth in population seen in many countries can’t be supported by non-renewable resources regardless the technological advancement. Within this institutional change, environmental impacts of increase in population and consumption are approached through I-PAT equation suggested by Daily and Ehrlich (1992). Resource use increases when number of people or resource use per capita increase in a country. Therefore, not only consumption per capita, but also population growth should be contained in order to move the economy towards steady-state (O’Neill, Dietz and Jones, 2010, p.50). Thus, I-PAT equation emphasises the need to stabilise population growth:

I = P × A × T

In this equation; I, P, A and T represent total impact on environment, population, affluence measured by income per capita and environmental impact per unit income, respectively (O’Neill, Dietz and Jones, 2010, p.50). Even though T and A can be limited by technological advancement and less consumption in order to decrease environmental impacts, this limitation is subject to some certain limits. Thus, it is necessary to limit population growth as well in order to accord increasing economic activity with environmental protection (O’Neill, Dietz and Jones, 2010, p.51; Ehrlich and Holdren, 1973, pp.76-81). According to the estimations made by UN, the world population, which is already 6,9 billion, is expected to be between 8 to 10,6 billion by 2050 (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2010). Such an increase in population would possibly increase the negative impacts on environment and natural resources.

12

Daly suggests using transferable birth licenses proposed by Boulding in order to contain population growth. However, this implementation inholds many inconveniences, especially human rights violation, and contrasts with the principles regarding the transition towards steady-state. Instead, implementation of social policies such as increasing individual awareness with regard to possible low wages caused by population growth, increasing pressure on natural resources, limited social rights and freedom seem more appropriate and applicable. Martin Roger’s presentation at CASSE Conference would be a guideway for how and through which policies population growth can be contained. According to his plan, international organizations, NGO’s and the government should co-ordinately work to stabilise population growth (Martin, 2010, p.2). Roger suggests promoting to have fewer children, to increase intra-family awareness regarding population planning and environmental consciousness, to broaden woman rights and to establish an unit under the related ministry researching the impacts of population growth.

Even though these suggestions seem large scaled and hard to implement at a single stroke, application of birth licenses is even harder and its advantages are open to discussion. On the other hand, participants of CASSE Conference are aware of the challenges against the implementation of their suggestions (O’Neill, Dietz and Jones, 2010, pp.54-55). Nevertheless, it is clear that population growth and increase in consumption should be contained in order to accord the economy with the nature. Despite that there is no general consent on how to contain them; these two factors should be monitored and limited. First steps for these would be to remove prejudices in public opinion and prevent overconsumption (O’Neill, Dietz and Jones, 2010, p.56). 3.4.3. Distributing Income and Wealth Growth is generally accepted as one of the most key tools to eradicate poverty and resolve inequality today. Even though this view can be taken for granted in some respects, differences between income groups and the extent of social and health problems in many developed countries don’t support this argument (The Guardian, 2009; The Equality Trust, n.d.). Similarly, statistics on happiness and innovation in developed countries show that inadequacies in these areas are related to unequal income distribution (Wilkinson and Pickett, 2010, pp.50-57). With reference to the fact that growth doesn’t always increase welfare of individuals, proponents of steady-state economics suggests distributing welfare equally in order to increase social welfare. Accordingly, equally distributed wealth make life expectancy longer, level down the crime rates and increase the individuals’ reliance on government (O’Neill, Dietz and Jones, 2010, pp.58-59; Wilkinson and Pickett, 2010, pp.48-49). Such a distribution can also help carrying out the institutional change regarding population and consumption, as it can enhance education quality, increase individuals’ awareness on social issues and prevent overconsumption arising due to higher social status and high inequality. Besides, more equal distribution of welfare can reduce the need for growth to increase individuals’ wealth.

As a result of implementing institutional change regarding limiting resource use, total production in the economy is expected to decrease and therefore the income flow will be limited. In addition to social and environmental concerns, such a decrease in total income would result in the need of redistributing wealth in a more equal way. Therefore, in an economy in which a sustainable relationship between the economy and environment is aimed, the emphasis on growth should be replaced by equal income distribution (O’Neill, Dietz and Jones, 2010, pp.58-59; Wilkinson and Pickett, 2010, p.58). At this point, the question of how to redistribute the wealth arises. Daly suggests that implementation of this institutional change can be done by putting some certain low and high limits to income. According to him, income gained through depletion quotas, cumulative multi-stage taxes and marginal taxes would be used to practice this change. In CASSE Conference on the other hand, suggestions put forward are based on several policies implemented in different places such as Sweden, Japan and U.S.A. (O’Neill, Dietz and Jones, 2010, pp.60-61).

Besides these possible implementations, contributors to CASSE Conference emphasize on improvement and implementation of economic democracy. This concept means participation of workers working at all public and private companies and of individuals consuming these companies’ products to their management and operation (Pickett, n.d., p.2). Democratic property rights and bottom-up policies that can make these individuals have a voice on policies of those firms and can be helpful to equally distribute the income. 4. Assessing the Turkish Economy within Steady-State Economics 4.1. Growth as an Indicator of Economic Activity in Turkey As economic activity increases in an economy, resource and energy use increase as well and so consequently does waste production. Therefore, in an assessment within steady-state economics, it is crucial to present the

13

magnitude and growth of the economy. In general, GDP is used as an indicator of the magnitude of economic activity in a certain period of time.

Accordingly, GDP is the market value of all the goods and services produced by labour and property located in a region, usually a country, within a year (About.com, 2012a). In steady-state economics, it is argued that GDP corresponds to throughput as well. In Figure 5, growth in GDP by kind of main sectors in Turkey is represented.* Figure 5. GDP by Production Approach by Kind of Main Economic Activity in Constant Prices (1987) in Turkey, 1990-2006

Source: Turkstat, 2012 Data presented in Figure 5 reveals that GDP in constant prices based on general level of prices in 1987 in Turkey nearly doubled from 1990 to 2006. The large part of this increase occurred especially after the economic crises in the late 2000 and early 2001. In this period, while contribution of agricultural sector to GDP remained almost the same; services and industrial sectors and their share in GDP significantly increased. Rapid growth in some sub-sectors in this period was remarkable as well. Accordingly, the manufacturing and energy sectors are included in the industrial sector, and these grew more than 2 and 2,5 times respectively; transport, storage and communication sector in services sector grew around 2 times (Turkstat, 2012). The Turkish Economy kept on growing rapidly after 2006; growth rate reached to 9 % in 2010 and 8,5 % in 2011. However, due to the negative effects of Mortgage Crisis in 2008, the economy averagely grew around 3,6 % from 2006 to 2011 (Turkstat, 2012a). These data regarding main and sub-sectors become more meaningful if they are dealt with the relationship of economy and environment presented in Figure 4. Therefore, growth and GHG emissions in these sectors should be assessed together in order to understand environmental sources and outcomes of growth in the Turkish Economy. 4.2. Resource Use in the Turkish Economy In order to analyse an economy in steady-state economic terms, it is essential to understand to what degree that economy is depended on the environment. Because, all economies live on primary energy sources and mines; requires more natural resources to keep on growing. As it is growing, the Turkish Economy’s demand on natural resources is increasing as well. As a result of this, the mining and energy sectors are growing, and waste production and GHG emissions are increasing. Since MENR state that natural resource consumption will keep increasing, the question of how sustainable the Turkish Economy is grows in importance.

* Since Turkstat started using data series based on general level of prices in 1998 from the year of 2007 and has not integrated it with the series based on general level of prices in 1987; GDP between from 1990 to 2006 and 2007 to 2012 are presented separately.

,010 000 000,020 000 000,030 000 000,040 000 000,050 000 000,060 000 000,070 000 000,080 000 000,090 000 000,0

100 000 000,0

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

GD

P (m

illio

n T

urki

sh L

ira)

Years

Services

Industry

Agriculture

14

Figure 6. Primary Energy Resources Consumption in Turkey (1990-2010)

Source: MENR, n.d.; MENR n.d.a

Figure 6 represents the development of primary natural resource consumption in Turkey between 1990 and 2010. Accordingly, in 2010, total primary resource consumption was about 109 million toe, while total domestic energy production was around 32 million toe (MENR, n.d.a). In that year, 31,9 % of total primary energy supply was met by natural gas, as the share of crude oil, coal (hard coal and lignite), wood, plant and animal residuals, renewable resources (solar power, wind power and geothermal), hydroelectric and other resources (such as asphaltite and biofuel) in total were respectively 26,7 %, 30,3%, 3,1 %, 1,1 %, 2,4 %, 4,1 % and 0,4 % (MENR, n.d.a). On the other hand, the share of these resources in total domestic primary energy production in 2010 was as follows: natural gas 1,9 %, crude oil 8,2 %, coal 52,4 %, wood 10,4 %, plant and animal residuals 3,6 %, renewable resources 8,2 %, hydroelectric 13,7 % and other resources 1,6 % (MENR, n.d.a). As can be understood from these data, the primary energy supply in Turkey are mainly provided by non-renewable resources such as crude oil, natural gas and hard coal; while the main resources used for domestic production are coal (especially lignite), wood, plant and animal residuals and hydroelectric power (MENR, n.d.a).

Figure 6 also reveals how the composition of natural resources used in energy production changed in Turkey between 1990 and 2010. In this period, the share of natural resources that has lower commercial value such as wood and residuals in total energy production significantly decreased, while the share of natural gas increased from 5,9 % to 31,9 %. In other words, these resources were substituted by natural gas. Besides natural gas, consumption of other main non-renewable resources such as coal and crude oil considerably increased as well. These three non-renewable resources constituted 86,9 % of the total energy supply in 2010. This fact reveals not only that the sources of energy supply in Turkey are mainly unsustainable; but also that energy supply in Turkey is heavily dependent on imports. In fact, Turkey produced 55,5 % of coal, 9,1 % of crude oil and 1,8 % of natural gas that was consumed in the country in 2010, and imported the rest. Despite that the share of hydroelectric power in domestic production increased to 13,7 %, its contribution to total primary energy supply remained relatively low. The use of renewable resources has increased in recent years; but however, their share of the total primary energy supply remains quite low. 4.2.1. Sectoral Energy Consumption in the Turkish Economy Besides putting forward the total resource use in the economy, it is also helpful to analyse this consumption at sectoral level in order to understand the resource consumption more deeply. MENR calculates sectoral energy consumption every year in Turkey. It classifies among others the following sectors: industry, transportation,

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Prim

ary

Res

ourc

e C

onsu

mpt

ion

(toe

)

Years

other

wood

plant andanimal residualsrenewableresourceshydroelectric +geothermalnatural gas

crude oil

hard coal

lignite

15

conversion and energy, residency and service. In Figure 7, final energy consumption* in these sectors between 1990 and 2010 are presented.

Figure 7. Final Sectoral Energy Consumption in Turkey (1990-2010)

Source: MENR, n.d.; MENR, n.d.a

These data show that energy consumption in all sectors have had a tendency to increase over the last twenty years. However, final energy consumption in the conversion and the energy sector and in the industrial sector has considerably increased since 1990, and as such an increase has occurred in residency and service sector since 2000. When we take the conversion and energy sector, in which conversion of natural resources and power generation are implemented, as a sub-sector of the industrial sector we can conclude that the industrial sector has a considerably high share in final energy consumption. It is notable that in the Turkish Economy, increases in final energy consumption go hand in hand with growth rates in sectors presented in the previous chapter.

Despite that MENR do not constantly calculate the energy consumption in sub-sectors of these sectors; Turkstat prepared the first and only report on energy consumption in sub-sectors of the industrial and service sectors in 2005. MENR, on the other hand, put forward the amount and sources of energy consumed in sub-sectors between 2006 and 2009. Accordingly, 72,82 % of final energy consumption in the industrial and service sectors occurred in the manufacturing sector in 2005 (Turkstat, 2008). When it comes to area of usage, 79,8 % of the final energy consumption occurred during the production of goods and services, while as transportation and space heating had the share of 14,09 % and 6,11 %, respectively (Turkstat, 2008). On the other hand, in the conversion and energy sector, energy consumed to produce electricity constituted 76,8 % of the total consumption in this sector (MENR, n.d.a.). Besides this high share, electricity production and demand almost tripled between 1990 and 2010 in Turkey (MENR, n.d.b.). 4.2.2. Waste Production in the Turkish Economy Due to increasing economic activity and energy consumption, as well as GHG emissions, the amount of waste and hazardous waste produced have increased as well. This in turn has resulted in increasing pressure on the environment in Turkey. In this section, data regarding the amount of GHG emissions in Turkey as an indicator of waste production is presented and commented in order to understand the effects of economic activity on the environment.

* Final energy consumption statistics at sectoral level show the amount of energy consumed during the production of goods and services, heating the space and transportation. On the other hand, total energy consumption includes the energy consumed during energy conversion process, besides final energy consumption (Turkstat, n.d.a).

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

3500019

9019

9119

9219

9319

9419

9519

9619

9719

9819

9920

0020

0120

0220

0320

0420

0520

0620

0720

0820

0920

10

Ene

rgy

Con

sum

ptio

n (t

oe)

Years

residential andservice sectorindustry sector

transportationsectorconversion andenergy sectoragriculturalsectorother

16

4.2.2.1. Total and Sectoral GHG Emissions in the Turkish Economy GHG emissions have become an important indicator in the last twenty years to understand to what extent economies pressure the environment (OECD, 2008, p.8). Due to the increasing economic activity especially since the Industrial Revolution, the amount of GHG, particularly of CO2, and radiation (in other words heat) emitted to the atmosphere considerably increased. These two outcomes resulted in an increasing temperature on the earth and therefore created negative effects on climate, ecosystem, agricultural activities, habitats and socio-cultural activities (OECD, 2008, p.12). As a consequence, limiting GHG emissions has become an important issue on the international agenda in the last twenty years.

The Kyoto Protocol, which was put forward as a part of UNFCC in 1992, still remains the main international agreement aiming to reduce GHG emissions. It has been signed by 191 countries including Turkey so far (UNFCC, 2012). Having signed this contract; Turkey is obliged to reduce its GHG emissions, except the emissions generated in international aviation and transportation, by 5,2 % compared to the amount of emissions in 1992 and to report change in GHG emissions every year (Turkstat, 2011, pp.1-2).

Figure 8 reveals the development of GHG emissions in Turkey between 1990 and 2009. According to this data prepared by Turkstat; the amount of CO2, CH4 and HFCs gases emissions have significantly increased in this period by 112 %, 62 % and 506 %, respectively. Similarly, in total, the amount of GHG gasses emissions was 98 % higher in 2009 than it was in 1990. CO2, CH4, N2O and F gases (consisted of PFCs, HFCs and SF6) consisted of 80,9 %, 14,7 %, 3,39 % and 1,01 % respectively of total GHG emissions in 2009. Due to this big share of CO2 emissions, development trends of CO2 and GHG emissions seem similar.

Figure 8. Development Trend of GHG Emissions in Turkey (1990-2009)

Source: Turkstat, n.d.a

90 % of CO2 emissions were due to the use of energy resources in 2009 (Turkstat, 2011, p.12). In Graph 5, contribution of energy resources consumed to CO2 emissions between 1990 and 2009 is shown. These data reflects the CO2 emissions occurred the processes of combustion and conversion of energy resources.

0,00

50,00

100,00

150,00

200,00

250,00

300,00

350,00

1990 1995 2000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

GH

G E

mis

sons

(mill

ion

tone

s CO

2 eq

uiva

lent

)

Years

CO2

CH4

N2O

F Gases

17

Figure 9. Contribution of Natural Resources Used to CO2 Emissions in Turkey (1990-2009)

Source: IEA, 2011, pp. 47-55

As can be seen on the figure above, CO2 emission created by energy resource use has significantly increased in Turkey. When we approach this data together with coal, crude oil and natural gas consumption data presented in Figure 6; a linear relationship between the amount of CO2 emissions and energy consumption can be clearly seen. The rapid increase in the use of natural gas and crude oil and coal consumption has resulted in increase in CO2 emissions. In 2009, coal and peat, crude oil and natural gas use contributed to CO2 emission by 43,8 %, 29,5 % and 26,6 %, respectively.

When it comes to sectoral GHG emissions, the share of energy related sectors (sectors in which activities are closely dependent on energy consumption) in total GHG emissions is far ahead compared to other sectors. Accordingly, it constituted 75,3 % of the total GHG emissions in 2009 (Turkstat, n.d.b). In other words, in 2009, three quarter of GHG emissions in Turkey was due to consumption of energy.

Figure 10. Sectoral CO2 Emissions in Turkey (1990-2009)

Source: Turkstat n.d.b

Turkstat separates energy related sectors into four sub-sectors: energy industry, manufacturing industry, transportation sector, and another sector that includes agriculture and residency. According to their data, CO2 emissions between 1990 and 2009 increased by 201,4% in energy industry, while it increased by 46,8%, 80% and 128,7% respectively in the three others (Turkstat, 2011, p.13). Gross electricity production, which takes place in the energy industry, tripled between 1990 and 2009 (MENR, n.d.b). This rapid increase in electricity

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1990 1995 2000 2005 2007 2008 2009

CO

2 E

mis

sions

(mill

ion

tonn

es o

f C

O2)

Years

Natural GasOilCoal/peat

0,00

50,00

100,00

150,00

200,00

250,00

300,00

350,00

400,00

450,00

1990 1995 2000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

CO

2 E

miss

ions

(mill

ion

tonn

es

equi

vale

nt)

Years

agriculture

waste

industrial processes

energy related sectors

18

production and its dependency on fossil fuels resulted in the mentioned increases in CO2 emissions. As a result, in 2009, electricity and heating production caused 21,4% of total CO2 emissions in Turkey. Indeed, in 2009, 49,8% of total gross electricity production was provided by natural gas, while 28,35% of it was supplied by coal (Turkstat, 2011, p.16). Even though the amount of electricity produced by renewable resources doubled in 2009 compared to 2008, as a result of the law on use of renewable resources in electricity production which took effect in 2005, the contribution of these resources to electricity production is still very limited (Turkstat, 2011, p.16).

When energy use and waste production in the last twenty years in the Turkish Economy are briefly assessed; it is understood that energy use, especially in the services, energy and industry sectors, and GHG emissions have considerably increased. Despite of lack of data and measurement methods regarding regeneration speed of non-renewable resources and absorbing capacity of ecosystems; it can be seen through the data above that the Turkish economy has not been developing according to Herman Daly’s principles for sustainable resource use. In the last twenty years the economy has grown more than two times, and primary energy supply and GHG emissions have increased around two times as well. Increasing demand for energy was mainly met by non-renewable resources, while use of these constituted 90% of total GHG emissions in 2009. Despite the law on use of renewable resources in electricity production and increases in investments on renewable energy, the share of these resources in primary energy supply remains very low. 4.2.3. Estimations and Policies on Energy Consumption in Turkey It is estimated by many institutions that the demand for energy will continue to increase in the following years worldwide, and so in Turkey as well. IEA (2006, p.7) predicts that demand for energy in developing countries will increase by 3% each year. According to this prediction, demand for energy in 2030 will be increased by 62% worldwide and around 100% in Turkey (IEA, 2006). According to the estimations made by MENR, Ministry of Development, EMRA and Undersecretary of Treasury, the total energy demand in Turkey by 2020 will be between 194 million and 222 million toe, in other words it will increase around two times (Satman, n.d, p.5). It means that energy demand in the Turkish Economy will increase even more rapidly compared to the period between 1990 and 2009.

Energy demand increased by 9,9 % averagely per year in Turkey between 1990 and 2010. If this increase trend will continue in the period of 2010-2030, energy demand is expected to reach 189 million toe in 2020 and 275 million toe in 2030. Increasing demand for electricity is the main cause of this expected increase. MENR and Ministry of Development expects that electricity demand, which occurred as 176 million gwh in 2009, will be around 440 million gwh by 2020 (Satman, n.d, p.7). On the other hand, it is calculated that 340.000 million gwh of electricity at maximum can be produced due to current installed natural gas plants and total potential of coal and hydroelectric resources (Satman, n.d, p.7). In case estimations made by MENR and the Ministry of development will show to be right, Turkey will not be able to meet energy demands from 2014.

Various laws and regulation have been decided on in order to meet the energy demand in Turkey. Within this context, a law on use of renewable resources in electricity production was passed in 2005, while laws on the establishment and operation of nuclear power plants and energy efficiency were passed in 2007 (MENR, 2010). The aim is not only to increase energy efficiency, to use renewable energy in electricity production and to practice awareness raising programmes. It is also aimed to establish nuclear and coal power plants, and to encourage using domestic coal resources to produce electricity (Kanun No: 5710). In other words, while this law aims to use energy resources in a more efficient and conscious way, it is on the other hand planned to meet the increasing energy demand by fossil fuels and to establish nuclear power plants. This dilemma is also reflected on the following statement of MENR: “In order to meet Turkey’s increasing energy demand in the long term, we aim to use domestic coal reserves, hydroelectric potential and renewable sources as maximal as possible. In addition, we propose using nuclear energy for electricity production and improving the current level of energy efficiency to EU standards” (MENR, 2010). Thus, in Turkey, the notion of sustainability does not correspond to the definition made by UN or to the interpretation of sustainability within steady-state economics.

Instead, sustainability seems to mean the ability to meet the energy demands of the country. In Turkey, where 73% and 90% of primary energy supply are being imported and provided by fossil fuels respectively, it does not seem possible to meet a reasonable part of energy demand by renewable resources. In fact, according to the estimations on renewable energy potential of Turkey by EIE, wind power and geothermal energy can produce 15.000 million gwh and 10000 million gwh in maximum respectively. In MENR’s statement quoted above and in the law took effect in 2005, it is understood that Turkey intend taking steps to use renewable in electricity production. However, the laws passed in 2007 and the current state of the Turkish Economy reveals that Turkey plans to prioritise to meet energy demands by a strategy that can provide the fastest solution in the short term.

19

4.3. Stabilizing Population and Consumption per Capita 4.3.1 Population Growth in Turkey Population growth between 1990 and 2010 and the expected population trend between 2010 and 2025 are shown in Figure 11.

Figure 11. Population Growth and Estimated Population in Turkey (1990-2025)

Source: Turkstat, n.d.c

According to this data, the population increased from 55 million to 73 million in Turkey between 1990 and 2010. Turkstat expects population to keep on increasing and to reach around 85 million in 2025. On the other hand, the actual and expected population growth rates are decreasing, as can be seen in Figure 12.

Figure 12. Population Growth Rate and Expected Growth Rate in Turkey (1990-2025)

Source: Turkstat, n.d.d

Accordingly, the population growth rate decreased from 1,7% to 1,3% between 1990 and 2010, and it is expected to be less than 0,8% by 2025. Nevertheless, population will keep on increasing in Turkey.

One of the main reasons underlying the expectation that energy demand will increase in Turkey is the expectation on population growth. Due to the increase in population, the aggregate demand will increase and this will result in a necessity to increase economic activity and therefore energy consumption. Since Turkey has met its energy demand by fossil fuels and plans to continue to do so, it is highly likely that increase in population will

10 000

20 000

30 000

40 000

50 000

60 000

70 000

80 000

90 000

Popu

latio

n (t

hous

and)

Years

Population

0,02,04,06,08,0

10,012,014,016,018,0

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

2022

2024Po

pula

tion

Gro

wth

Rat

e (%

o)

Years

Population Growth Rate

20

strengthen the negative impact on the environment by increasing non-renewable resource use and waste production.

Turkey does not have a current plan to stabilise population growth. On the contrary, it is understood through various statements made by politicians and bureaucrats on ideal family size, and through promulgated practices, that the government is uncomfortable with a decreasing population growth rate and an increasing share of elderly population, and therefore encourages population growth (Ntvmsnbc, 2009). Parallel to this, the government changed its policy on child-care benefits in 2011. From being granted child support for a maximum of two children, families can now receive aid from the government regardless of the number of children in the family, and even for children over six years of age (Halk Gazetesi, 2011.) 4.3.2. Consumption per Capita in Turkey Yet another variable that is aimed to be controlled in steady-state economics is consumption per capita. In Figure 13, changes in final private consumption per capita between 1990 and 2006 are presented. 1987 is taken as base year.

Figure 13. Final Private Consumption per Capita in Turkey (1987=100)

Source: Turkstat, n.d.c; Turkstat n.d.d

The final private consumption collaterally increased with growth by around 45% between 1990 and 2006 in Turkey. In this period the most crucial change occurred in the product class of durable consumer goods, as its share increased from 10,4% to 21,2%. Despite that Turkstat does not offer more detailed information, an increase in the consumption of these products could trigger more energy consumption. Similarly, energy consumption per capita increased around 50% in the same period (Satman, n.d., p.4).

When assessed within the I-PAT equation, both population and consumption per capita have increased in the Turkish Economy. Even though effects of technological advancement on the environment are not being measured, data regarding ecological footprint and bio-capacity can give us an idea about the environmental effects of the consumption of individuals.

Ecological footprint is a standardized calculation method to comprehend the amount of ecosystem services demanded to meet human needs (Global Footprint Network, 2012). On the other hand, bio-capacity reveals the supply of natural resources provided by bio-capacity to meet human beings’ demands (Ewing, et al., 2010, p.1). In other words, it reflects the capacity of the biosphere to meet individuals’ resource use and waste production. Figure 14 shows the change in ecological footprint and bio-capacity over the period of 1960 to 2007.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Priv

ate

Fina

l Con

sum

ptio

n pe

r C

apita

(199

0=10

0)

Years

Private FinalConsumptionExpenditure perCapita

21

Figure 14. Change in Ecological Footprint and Biocapacity in Turkey (1960-2007)

Source: Global Footprint Network, 2012a A global hectare per capita shows the biologically fertile amount of hectare per capita. Accordingly, it decreased by around 25% between the 1990 and 2007 in Turkey. On the other hand, the ecological footprint increased by some 50% during the same period. This data can be correlated with the data on natural resource use and GHG emissions presented in the previous sections. To sum up, population has grown and is expected to keep growing in Turkey. Besides that, the facts that energy consumption per capita and private consumption per capita significantly increased in the last twenty years, contrast with the principles of steady-state economics. At the same time the bio-capacity, which basically provides what human beings consume, constantly decreased. The main reason for this decrease is the increasing population and consumption. 4.4. Income Distribution in the Turkish Economy The Gini coefficient and data on income groups are some of the main indicators to comprehend income distribution in countries. In the Figure 15 Turkstat’s data on distribution of disposable income within income groups of 20% are shown. Income groups are ranked from lower income groups to higher ones, i. e. while the first group of 20% reflects the group having the lowest income, the fifth groups shows the group with the highest income. Figure 15. Distribution of Household Disposable Income as Groups of 20% in the Turkish Economy (2002-2009)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Perc

enta

ge (%

)

Years

1. group of 20 %

2. group of 20 %

3. group of 20 %

4. group of 20 %

5. group of 20 %

22

Source: Turkstat, n.d.e; Turkstat, n.d.f As can be seen on the figure, there are huge income differences in Turkey. Despite the fact that the Turkish Economy has grown around 100% at constant prices during the period of 1994 to 2009, income distribution did not follow to any high extent. During that period, the share of the fifth income group dropped to 46% from 54,9%, income of the fourth, third and second groups averagely increased by 2,6% and the share of the first income group increased from 4,9% to 6,2%. Income was transferred from the fifth group to the other groups, although to a very limited extent. Between 1994 and 2009 income difference between the fifth and first group dropped from 11,2 times to 7,4 times. According to the data on income differences between the fifth and first groups, Turkey has the second worst income distribution within the OECD countries (Graph 12). When compared to countries where the level of development is close to Turkey, it is more clearly understood how unfair the income distribution in Turkey is (Figure 16). On the figure, vertical axis represents Gini coeficient while horizontal axis shows the countries. In 2005, when the income difference between the first and fifth groups was 8,4 in Turkey, it was 3,7 in Bulgaria, 3,9 in the Czech Republic, 4,3 in Cyprus, 4,5 in Hungary, 4,9 in Romania and 5,1 in Greece (OECD, 2008 a, p.23). The average difference within OECD countries was 5,3 in 2005. Figure 16. Gini Coefficient in OECD Countries

Source: OECD, 2008 a, p.23

Also according to Gini coefficient measurements, which can be understood as another reflection of income groups of 20%, income distribution is quite unfair in Turkey. Table 1 shows the change in Gini coefficient over the years.*

Table 1. Change in Gini Coefficient Over Years in Turkey (1985-2009)

Gini / Years 1985 1995 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Gini Coefficient 0,43 0,49 0,43 0,403 0,387 0,386 0,394 Source: Turkstat, n.d.e; OECD, 2012 As the progress of the Gini coefficient was 8%, between 1985 and 2009, it did not even change between 1985 and 2005. When we take into account the fact that the Turkish Economy grew around two times between 1990 and 2009, it can be concluded that positive effects of growth have not reflected on all citizens in the society, which is argued that it should by proponents of steady-state economics. This argument is also confirmed by Turkstat’s survey on poverty during 2002-2009. While the Turkish Economy had a solid growth performance, relative poverty (based on expenditures) increased from 14,7% to 15,1% (Çilingirlioğlu, 2009).

Although Table 1 shows that the Gini coefficient became better between 2006 and 2009, we need to take into account that data for 2006 to 2009 is prepared by Turkstat, which could have a more optimistic estimation than

* Data on the year on 1985, 1995 and 2005 is taken from OECD sources and respectively represent mid 1980’s, mid 1990’s and mid 2000’s.

23

OECD, while data for 1985 to 2005 was gathered by OECD. For instance, Turkstat estimated the Gini coefficient as 0,38 in 2005, while the OECD data shows that it was 0,43 in the same year (Turkstat, 2006; Table 1).

Data on income distribution in Turkey contradicts the argument that growth is a vital requirement for a fairer income distribution. No correlation between growth and income distribution can be seen when abstracting other variables and factors. Income distribution became just slightly better, and didn’t even change between 1985 and 2005 according to OECD’s data, while the economy was in a strong growth trend. This fact confirms the idea that growth is not the key and only condition to enhance social welfare and distribute it more equally. In addition, it shows that income distribution has a bigger potential than rapid growth in order to equally distribute social welfare within the society in Turkey. 5. Analyzing The Case: Discussion and Suggestions Daly depicts the ideal economy proposed in steady-state economics as “an economy with constant stocks of people and artefacts, maintained at some desired, sufficient levels by low rates of maintenance “throughput”, that is, by the lowest feasible flows of matter and energy from the first stage of production to the last stage of consumption”. As can be understood from this statement, the magnitude of indicators regarding this ideal economy can’t be exactly put forward; but instead, the intended tendency regarding these is emphasized. Measurement complexities, that are the major reasons of the uncertainty in the statement above, prevent us to determine the exact level of throughput, natural resource consumption and waste production. Therefore, this uncertainty should be taken into account while assessing the indicators of the Turkish Economy within steady-state economics.

In brief, it can be argued that development and current state of the Turkish Economy are far apart a steady-state economy. The economy and primary resource consumption have grown more than two times since 1990, and this has been made realized by mainly using fossil fuels. As a result of this, GHG emissions have doubled in the last twenty years. Besides, the change in sectoral energy consumption and GHG emissions seem parallel and correspond to each other. Population growth, which is one of the main determinants of growth and waste production, has been expeditiously increased in the last twenty years and is expected to keep increasing at least until 2025 (Graph 7 and 8). On the other hand, Gini coefficient and income difference between groups of 20 % have got better so limited in the last twenty years. Thus, growth has differently resulted in than the view arguing growth is beneficial for all segments of the society.

Development of the Turkish Economy’s indicators supports the relationship between the economy and environment, which is put forward in the Figure 4. Accordingly, population growth increases the level of economic activity by stimulating aggregate demand and therefore results in increasing pressure on the environment. Unequal income distribution, on the other hand, strengthens the view arguing the need of growth to increase welfare of the lower income groups in the society. This can also end up with increasing level of economic activities.

Increasing population growth, which is expected to keep on, expected increase in consumption and energy demand, and its high dependency on fossil fuels seem as the major obstacles in the Turkish Economy to move towards steady-state, or to a more sustainable state, in other words. On the other hand, policies that can help containing population growth and provide a more equal income distribution, increasing the efficiency in energy consumption and the share of renewable sources in primary energy supply, recycling and reuse seem to be the primal policy options to move the economy towards steady-state. Besides, the magnitude of throughput and green national accounts should be measured and provided; the notion of sustainability should be approached differently and within ecological economics in Turkey.

I believe that stabilising population growth and distributing income in a more equal way are the most applicable policies to make the Turkish Economy more sustainable. In fact, population growth seems to be the main reason of increasing economic activity and its negative results on the environment. However, there is not any government policy to increase the awareness regarding the effects of population growth in the society, on the contrary, a propaganda encouraging it prevails. Since it would help to contain energy demand and aggregate consumption, and does not require a high investment cost; it should be a primary political tool dealt in Turkey. The current decreasing trend of population growth rate would be helpful to carry out this policy. Within this context, by considering Turkey’s own condition and the balance between young and elderly population, policies aimed to increase individuals’ awareness on population growth should be prepared. In addition to this, income distribution is yet another major political tool to ease the emphasis on the need for growth. In fact, indicators show that the main issue in Turkey is not the amount of total production, but the distribution of it within the

24

society. As stated previously, income has been distributed quite fairly in Turkey compared to its counterparts (Figure 16). In Turkey, where 17,01 % of the population lived below the poverty line in 2009, income distribution, rather than growth, would increase the welfare of the lower income groups (Turkstat, 2011a). Thus, it would be anticipated that urgency of growth and emphasis on it would be reduced by implementing policies regarding income distribution and population growth together. After the implementation of these policies Turkish Economy would also require growth, however, this need would be limited due to the stabilized population and more equal income distribution.

Even when income is distributed better and population growth is stabilized, Turkey would still need to change natural resources used in primary energy supply and increase energy efficiency within the country. Despite the government has made some attempts in this issue in the recent years, such as legitimating laws on use of renewable resources in electricity and energy efficiency, the law on establishment and operation of nuclear power plants makes an impression that the share of renewable resources in energy production will remain limited in the following years as well. Besides, it should be considered that MENR classifies hydro-electric power as a renewable energy and that hydroelectric power plants constitute the large part of its investments on renewable energy. Hence, 83 % of the increase in electricity production produced from renewable resources between 2002 and 2009 was provided by hydroelectric power plants (Turkstat, 2011: 19). In addition, the possibility of high levels of ecocide due to the rich biodiversity in the location selected to establish hydroelectric power plants and limited contribution of this energy source to primary energy supply have sparked a debate in Turkey. Despite the fact that renewable resources have a low benefit cost ratio in the short term, it is essential for Turkey to increase the share of renewable resources in energy production to make the economy more sustainable. Containment of the energy demand thanks to policies on stabilising population and distributing income would be helpful to make this shift. Energy Efficiency Law which took effect in 2007 aims to reduce wasting energy and energy cost, and increase energy efficiency to preserve energy sources (Resmi Gazete, 2007, p.1). If this law can be practically implemented, it would help Turkish Economy to move towards steady-state by making natural resource use more efficient. Besides the laws and regulations on energy efficiency, regulations on recycling and reuse of waste should be made. Even though it is subject to some certain limits due to the laws of thermodynamics, reuse and recycle of current stocks in the economy would slow down the process shown on the Figure 4 and therefore be helpful to reduce negative effects on the environment.

One of the most major challenges to assess the Turkish Economy within steady-state is to measure the level of throughput. Although Daly believes that growth rates can correspond to the magnitude of throughput, these two do not completely match with each other. In order to compare the benefits and costs of growth, periodical statistics on throughput, waste production, regeneration speed of environment should be prepared in Turkey. At this point, the way to tackle and interpret the notions of sustainability and sustainable development grows in importance. Statements in the regulations and laws clearly show that, in Turkey, these notions are not perceived as it is in ecological economics. Instead, they are comprehended even weaker than UN’s approach, which can be named as sustainable growth. Approaching to and interpreting these within ecological economics, and making implementations with regard to these would make the relationship between Turkish Economy and its environment more sustainable and therefore result in favour of Turkey in the long term. 6. Conclusion According to the indicators of the Turkish Economy in the last twenty years, it can be understood that the economy has not moving towards the steady-state. Rapid growth rates, correspondingly increasing GHG emissions, population growth rates and slightingly improved income distribution supports this conclusion. Estimated increases in population and total energy consumption in the forthcoming years indicates that the economy is not going to move towards steady-state in the near future.

As a developing country, Turkey is not capable to expeditiously make its growth process, in other words its resource use and waste production, sustainable. Nevertheless, Turkey needs to do planning on how to make its economy environmentally-friendly in the future.

Income distribution and containing the population growth seem to be the most applicable policies to make the Turkish Economy towards steady-state. Thanks to the implementation of these two policies, the need for growth would be scaled down and therefore lesser natural resource would be consumed in the economy. In addition to these two policies; legal regulations encouraging renewable resource use and energy efficiency, recycling and reuse should be promoted and practised.

25

7. Acknowledgement Firstly, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor Eva Friman for her continuous encouragement, support and patience throughout my degree project. Her advice and readiness to read and make comments on my thesis helped me a lot to keep my motivation and concentration high.

In addition, I would like to thank to my evaluator Leif Bratt for his valuable comments on my thesis.

Finally, I am pleased to thank to my family and friends for their moral support and tolerance during the project.

26

8. References

About.com, 2012. Definition of Gini Coefficient. [online] Available at: <http://economics.about.com/cs/economicsglossary/g/gini.htm> [Accessed 15 July 2012]. About.com, 2012a. Definition of GDP / Gross Domestic Product. [online] Available at: <http://economics.about.com/cs/economicsglossary/g/gdp.htm> [Accessed 01 August 2012]. Barnett, H. and Morse, C., 1963. Scarcity and Growth: The Economics of Natural Resource Availability. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press. Boulding, K. E., n.d. The Economics of the Coming Spaceship Earth. In: H. Jarrett, ed. 1966. Environmental Quality in a Growing Economy. Baltimore: John Hopkin Press.

Chang, H., 2003. Kicking Away the Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical Perspective, London: Anthem Press.

Commission on Growth and Development, 2008. The Growth Report: Strategies for Sustained Growth and Inclusive Development. [online] Washington: WB. Available at: <http://cgd.s3.amazonaws.com/GrowthReportComplete.pdf> [Accessed 05 July 2012].

Çilingirlioğlu, N., 2009. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu’nun 2002-2009 Yılları Arası Yoksulluk Bulguları, Toplum Hekimliği Bülteni, [online] Available at:< http://www.thb.hacettepe.edu.tr/arsiv/2009/sayi_3/baslik4.pdf> [Accessed 04 September 2012].

Daly, H. E., 1974. Steady-State Economics versus Growthmania: A Critique of the Orthodox Conceptions of Growth, Wants, Scarcity and Efficiency. Policy Sciences, [e-journal] 5 (4), pp.149-174. Available through: Uppsala University Library website < http://www.ub.uu.se> [Accessed 20 July 2012].

Daly, H. E., 1990. Toward some operational principles of sustainable development. Ecological Economics, [e-journal] 2 (1), pp.1-6. Available through: Uppsala University Library website < http://www.ub.uu.se> [Accessed 20 July 2012].

Daly, H.E., 1991. Steady-State Economics. 2nd ed. Washington D.C.: Island Press.

Daly, H.E., 1993. Steady-State Economics: A New Paradigm. New Literary History, [e-journal] 24 (4), pp.811-816. Available through: Uppsala University Library website < http://www.ub.uu.se> [Accessed 19 July 2012].

Daly, H.E., 1995. On Georgescu Roegen’s contributions to Economics: an obituary essay. Ecological Economics, [e-journal] 13 (3), pp.149-154. Available through: Uppsala University Library website < http://www.ub.uu.se> [Accessed 19 July 2012].

Daly, H. E., 2005. Economics in a Full World. Scientific American, [e-journal] 293 (3), pp. 100-107. Available through: Uppsala University Library website < http://www.ub.uu.se> [Accessed 21 July 2012].

Daily, G. C. and Ehrlich, P. R., 1992. Population, Sustainability, and Earth’s Carrying Capacity. BioScience, [e-journal] 42 (10), pp.761-771. Available through: Uppsala University Library website < http://www.ub.uu.se> [Accessed 22 July 2012].

Duncan, O. D., 1975. Does Money Buy Satisfaction?. Social Indicators Research, [e-journal] 2 (3), pp.267-274. Available through: Uppsala University Library website < http://www.ub.uu.se> [Accessed 18 July 2012].

Easterlin, R. A., n.d. Does Economic Growth Improve Human A Lot? Some Empirical Evidence [pdf] Available at: <http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/04/16/business/Easterlin1974.pdf> [Accessed 07 July 2012].

Easterlin, R. A., 1995. Will raising the incomes of all raise the happiness of all?. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, [e-journal] 27 (1), pp.35-47. Available through: Uppsala University Library website < http://www.ub.uu.se> [Accessed 25 July 2012].

Ehrlich, P. R. and Holdren, J. P., n.d. Impact of Population Growth. In: H.E. Daly, ed. 1973. Toward a Steady-State Economy. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Company, pp.76-89.

http://economics.about.com/cs/economicsglossary/g/gini.htm

http://economics.about.com/cs/economicsglossary/g/gdp.htm

http://cgd.s3.amazonaws.com/GrowthReportComplete.pdf

http://www.thb.hacettepe.edu.tr/arsiv/2009/sayi_3/baslik4.pdf

http://www.ub.uu.se/







http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/04/16/business/Easterlin1974.pdf


27

Ekins, P., 1993. Limits to Growth and sustainable development: grappling with ecological realities. Ecological Economics, [e-journal] 8 (3) pp.269-288. Available through: Uppsala University Library website < http://www.ub.uu.se> [Accessed 25 July 2012].

Ewing, B., Reed, A., Galli, A., Kitzes, J. and Wackernagel, M., 2010. Calculation Methodology for the National Footprint Accounts, 2010 Edition. [online] Oakland: Global Footprint Network. Available at: < http://www.footprintnetwork.org/images/uploads/National_Footprint_Accounts_Method_Paper_2010.pdf> [Accessed 25 July 2012].

Hauser, J. A., 1992. Population, Ecology and The New Economics: Guidelines for a steady-state economy, Futures, [e-journal] 24 (4), 364-387. Available through: Uppsala University Library website < http://www.ub.uu.se> [Accessed 23 July 2012].

Global Footprint Network, 2012. Footprint Basics - Overview. [online] Available at: <http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/footprint_basics_overview/> [Accessed 14 August 2012].

Global Footprint Network, 2012a. Footprint Basics – Footprint for Nations. [online] Available at: <http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/trends/turkey/> [Accessed 14 August 2012].

Halk Gazetesi, 2011. Başbakan 3 Çocuk Dedi Yasadan ‘Para’ Çıktı. Halk Gazetesi [online] n.d. Available at:< http://www.halkgazetesi.com.tr/news_detail.php?id=28894> [Accessed 14 August 2012].

IEA, 2006: International Energy Outlook. [online] Washington: IEA. Available at: <http://www.fypower.org/pdf/EIA_IntlEnergyOutlook(2006).pdf> [Accessed 16 August 2012].

IEA, 2011. CO2 Emission From Fuel Combustion Highlights: 2010 Edition. [online] Paris: OECD/IEA. Available at:<http://www.iea.org/co2highlights/co2highlights.pdf> [Accessed 16 August 2012].

IMF, 2012. World Economic Outlook: Growth Resuming, Dangers Remian. [online] Washington D.C.: IMF. Available at: <http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2012/01/pdf/text.pdf> [Accessed 10 Jıne 2012].

Jackson, T., 2009. Prosperity Without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet, London: Earthscan.

Kerschner, C., 2010. Economic de-growth vs. steady-state economy, Journal of Cleaner Production, [e-journal] 18 (6), pp.544-551. Available through: Uppsala University Library website <http://www.ub.uu.se> [Accessed 26 July 2012].

Keynes, J. M., 1936. The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, London: Macmillan.

Resmi Gazete, Sayı: 26510, 2007. Kanun No. 5627, Enerji Verimliliği Kanunu [pdf] Available at: <http://www.enerji.gov.tr/mevzuat/5627/5627_Sayili_Enerji_Verimliligi_Kanunu.pdf> [Accessed 14 August 2012].

Kanun No: 5710, 2007. Nükleer Güç Santrallarının Kurulması ve İşletilmesi ile Enerji Satışına İlişkin Kanun [pdf] Available at: <http://www.enerji.gov.tr/mevzuat/5710/5710_Sayili_Nukleer_Guc_Santrallarinin_Kurulmasi_ve_Isletilmesi_Ile_Enerji_Satisina_Iliskin_Kanun.pdf> [Accessed 14 August 2012].

Lawn, P., 2010. Facilitating the transition to a steady-state economy: Some macroeconomic fundamentals. Ecological Economics, [e-journal] 69 (5), pp.931-936. Available through: Uppsala University Library website <http://www.ub.uu.se> [Accessed 25 July 2012].

Levallois, C., 2010. Can de-growth be considered a policy option? A historical note on Nicholas Georgescu Roegen and the Club of Rome, Ecological Economics, [e-journal] 69 (11), pp.2271-2278. Available through: Uppsala University Library website <http://www.ub.uu.se> [Accessed 26 July 2012].

Martin, R., 2010. Workshop on Stabilising Population [pdf] Available at: <http://steadystate.org/wp-content/uploads/WS2_Proposal_Population.pdf> [Accessed 22 July 2012].

Meadows, D., 1972. The limits to growth: a report for the club of Rome’s project on the predicament of mankind. London: Earthscan.


http://www.footprintnetwork.org/images/uploads/National_Footprint_Accounts_Method_Paper_2010.pdf


http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/footprint_basics_overview/

http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/trends/turkey/

http://www.halkgazetesi.com.tr/news_detail.php?id=28894

http://www.fypower.org/pdf/EIA_IntlEnergyOutlook(2006).pdf

http://www.iea.org/co2highlights/co2highlights.pdf

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2012/01/pdf/text.pdf


http://www.enerji.gov.tr/mevzuat/5627/5627_Sayili_Enerji_Verimliligi_Kanunu.pdf

http://www.enerji.gov.tr/mevzuat/5710/5710_Sayili_Nukleer_Guc_Santrallarinin_Kurulmasi_ve_Isletilmesi_Ile_Enerji_Satisina_Iliskin_Kanun.pdf

http://www.enerji.gov.tr/mevzuat/5710/5710_Sayili_Nukleer_Guc_Santrallarinin_Kurulmasi_ve_Isletilmesi_Ile_Enerji_Satisina_Iliskin_Kanun.pdf



http://steadystate.org/wp-content/uploads/WS2_Proposal_Population.pdf

http://steadystate.org/wp-content/uploads/WS2_Proposal_Population.pdf

28

Mill, J. S., n.d. Principles of Political Economy with Some of Their Applications to Social Philosopy Part 2. [e-book] s.l.: s.n. Available at: Google Books [Accessed 05.07.2012].

MENR, n.d. Birincil Enerji Kaynakları Tüketimi [1970-2006] (BinTep). [online] Available at: <http://www.enerji.gov.tr/index.php?dil=tr&sf=webpages&b=y_istatistik&bn=244&hn=244&id=398> [Accessed 07 August 2012].

MENR, n.d.a. 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 Yılı Genel Enerji Dengesi (Bin Tep). [online] Available at: <http://www.enerji.gov.tr/index.php?dil=tr&sf=webpages&b=y_istatistik&bn=244&hn=244&id=398> [Accessed 07 August 2012].

MENR n.d.b. Türkiye Brüt Elektrik Enerjisi Üretim- İthalat- İhracat Ve Talebinin Yıllar İtibariyle Gelişimi (1975-2007) (GWh). [online] Available at: <http://www.enerji.gov.tr/EKLENTI_VIEW/index.php/raporlar/raporVeriGir/21492/2> [Accessed 08 August 2012].

MENR, 2010. Enerji [online]. Available at:< http://www.enerji.gov.tr/index.php?dil=tr&sf=webpages&b=enerji&bn=215&hn=12&nm=384&id=384> [Accessed 14 August 2012].

Ntvmsnbc, 2009. Erdoğan: İş İşten Geçmeden En Az Üç Çocuk. Ntvmsnbc [online] 10 October 2009. Available at: <http://www.ntvmsnbc.com/id/25008774/> [Accessed 14.08.2012].

O’Neill, D.W., Dietz, R. and Jones, N., 2010. Enough is Enough: Ideas for a sustainable economy in a world of finite resources: The report of the Steady State Economy Conference. [online] Leeds: Center for the Advancement of the Steady State and Economic Justice for All Avaliable at: <http://steadystate.org/wp-content/uploads/EnoughIsEnough_FullReport.pdf> [Accessed 19 July 2012].

OECD, 2008. Key Environmental Indicators. [online] Paris: OECD. Available at: <http://www.oecd.org/environment/environmentalindicatorsmodellingandoutlooks/37551205.pdf> [Accessed 16 August 2012].

OECD, 2008 a. Growing Unequal?: Income Distribution and Poverty in OECD Countries. [online] Paris: OECD. Available at: <http://www.mzv.sk/App/wcm/media.nsf/vw_ByID/ID_CBD2FABFAB495B52C1257648003959F2_SK/$File/Growing%20Unequal.pdf> [Accessed 17August 2012].

OECD, 2012. Income Distribution – Inequality. [online] Available at: <http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=INEQUALITY> [Accessed 15 August 2012].

Pickett, K., n.d. Workshop on Distribution of Income and Wealth. [pdf] Available at: <http://steadystate.org/wp-content/uploads/WS3_Proposal_Distribution.pdf> [Accessed 09 August 2012].

Pin, X. and Hutao, Y., 2007. Re-reading Steady-state Economy: Calm Thinking on Hot Circular Economy, China Population, Resources and Environment, [e-journal] 17 (3), pp.20-23. Available through: Uppsala University Library website <http://www.ub.uu.se> [Accessed 26 July 2012].

Roegen, N. G., 1975. Energy and Economic Myhts, Southern Economic Journal [e-journal] 41 (3), pp.347-381. Available through: Uppsala University Library website <http://www.ub.uu.se> [Accessed 13 July 2012].

Roegen, N. G., 1971. The Entropy Law and Economic Process, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Ropke, I., 2004. The early history of modern ecological economics, Ecological Economics, [e-journal] 50 (3-4), pp.293-314. Available through: Uppsala University Library website <http://www.ub.uu.se> [Accessed 11 June 2012].

Ropke, I., 2005: Trends in the development of ecological economics from the late 1980s to the 2000s, Ecological Economics, [e-journal] 55 (2), pp.262-290. Available through: Uppsala University Library website <http://www.ub.uu.se> [Accessed 11 June 2012].

Satman, A., n.d. Türkiye’nin Enerji Vizyonu. [pdf] Available at:< http://www.mmo.org.tr/resimler/dosya_ekler/8188c7e9965c217_ek.pdf> [Accessed 13 August 2012].

http://www.enerji.gov.tr/index.php?dil=tr&sf=webpages&b=y_istatistik&bn=244&hn=244&id=398

http://www.enerji.gov.tr/index.php?dil=tr&sf=webpages&b=y_istatistik&bn=244&hn=244&id=398

http://www.enerji.gov.tr/EKLENTI_VIEW/index.php/raporlar/raporVeriGir/21492/2

http://www.enerji.gov.tr/index.php?dil=tr&sf=webpages&b=enerji&bn=215&hn=12&nm=384&id=384

http://www.ntvmsnbc.com/id/25008774/

http://www.oecd.org/environment/environmentalindicatorsmodellingandoutlooks/37551205.pdf

http://www.mzv.sk/App/wcm/media.nsf/vw_ByID/ID_CBD2FABFAB495B52C1257648003959F2_SK/$File/Growing%20Unequal.pdf

http://www.mzv.sk/App/wcm/media.nsf/vw_ByID/ID_CBD2FABFAB495B52C1257648003959F2_SK/$File/Growing%20Unequal.pdf

http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=INEQUALITY

http://steadystate.org/wp-content/uploads/WS3_Proposal_Distribution.pdf

http://steadystate.org/wp-content/uploads/WS3_Proposal_Distribution.pdf





http://www.mmo.org.tr/resimler/dosya_ekler/8188c7e9965c217_ek.pdf

29

Schneider, F., Martinez, A. J. and Kallis, G., 2010. Crisis or Opportunity? Degrowth for social equity and ecological sustainability. Introduction to this special issue, Journal of Cleaner Production, [e-journal] 18 (6), pp.511-518. Available through: Uppsala University Library website <http://www.ub.uu.se> [Accessed 05 May 2012].

Shin, D. C., 1980. Does Economic Growth Improve the Human A Lot? Some Empirical Evidence, Social Indicators Research, [e-journal] 8, pp.199-221. Available through: Uppsala University Library website <http://www.ub.uu.se> [Accessed 15 June 2012].

The Equality Trust, n.d. Why More Equality. [online] Available at: <http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why> [Accessed 22 July 2012].

The Guardian, 2009. Inequality: mother of all evils?. [online] Available at: <http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/docs/inequality.pdf> [Accessed 22 July 2012].

Science & Environmental Health Network, 2012. Precautionary Principle. [online] Available at <http://www.sehn.org/precaution.html> [Accessed 14 July 2012].

Turkstat,n.d. Sektörel Enerji Tüketim İstatistikleri, 2005: Veri: Kapsam, Dönem ve Zamanlılık. [online] Available at: http://www.tuik.gov.tr/VeriBilgi.do?alt_id=11 [Accessed 08 August 2012].

Turkstat, n.d.a, Air Statistics: GHG emissions (million tonnes CO2 eq.). [online] Available at: <http://www.turkstat.gov.tr/VeriBilgi.do?alt_id=10> [Accessed 11 August 2012].

Turkstat n.d.b, Air Statistics: GHG emissions by sectors (million tonnes CO2 eq.). [online] Available at: <http://www.turkstat.gov.tr/VeriBilgi.do?alt_id=10> [Accessed 12 August 2012].

Turkstat n.d.c, Population Projections and Estimations: Mid-year Population. [online] Available at: <http://www.turkstat.gov.tr/VeriBilgi.do?alt_id=39> [Accessed 14 August 2012].

Turkstat n.d.d, GDP By Expenditure Approach (1987 base): Expenditures on the gross domestic product, 1987-2007 (at 1987 prices, Million TL). [online] Available at:< http://www.turkstat.gov.tr/VeriBilgi.do?alt_id=57> [Accessed 14 August 2012].

Turkstat, n.d.e, Household Budget Survey (1994-2005), Results of 1994-2005: Income distribution by 5 per groups ordered by income. [online] Available at:<http://www.turkstat.gov.tr/VeriBilgi.do?alt_id=24> [Accessed15 August 2012].

Turkstat n.d.f, Income and Living Conditions Survey, Income Distribution: Quintiles/Deciles ordered by household disposable income. [online] Available at: <http://www.turkstat.gov.tr/VeriBilgi.do?alt_id=24> [Accessed15 August 2012].

Turkstat, 2006. Haber Bülteni 207, 2005 Gelir Dağılımı Sonuçları. [press release], 25 December 2006, Available at:<http://tuik.gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.do?id=408> [Accessed 15 August 2012].

Turkstat, 2008. Haber Bülteni 125, Sektörel Enerji Tüketim İstatistikleri, 2005. 30 July 2008 [press release], Available at: <http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.do?id=3969> [Accessed 09 August 2012].

Turkstat, 2011. TURKEY Greenhouse Gas Inventory: Annual Report for submission under the Framework Convention on Climate Change. [pdf] Ankara: Turkstat. Available at: <http://web.ogm.gov.tr/diger/iklim/Dokumanlar/RAPORLAR/TURKEY%20NIR%20Part%20I%20(wo%20LULUCF).pdf> [Accessed 29 November 2012].

Turkstat, 2011a, Haber Bülteni 41, Gelir ve Yaşam Koşulları Araştırması, 2009. [press release] 28 February 2011, Available at:<http://tuik.gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.do?id=8448> Accessed [02 September 2012].

Turkstat, 2012. Gross National-Domestic Product in Current And Constant Prices(1987 base). [online] Available at: <http://www.turkstat.gov.tr/VeriBilgi.do?alt_id=55> [Accessed 04 August 2012].

Turkstat, 2012a. Gross Domestic Product in Current And Constant Prices(1998 base). [online] Available at: <http://www.turkstat.gov.tr/VeriBilgi.do?alt_id=55> [Accessed 04 August 2012].



http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why

http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/docs/inequality.pdf

http://www.sehn.org/precaution.html

http://www.tuik.gov.tr/VeriBilgi.do?alt_id=11

http://www.turkstat.gov.tr/VeriBilgi.do?alt_id=10






http://tuik.gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.do?id=408

http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.do?id=3969

http://web.ogm.gov.tr/diger/iklim/Dokumanlar/RAPORLAR/TURKEY%20NIR%20Part%20I%20(wo%20LULUCF).pdf

http://web.ogm.gov.tr/diger/iklim/Dokumanlar/RAPORLAR/TURKEY%20NIR%20Part%20I%20(wo%20LULUCF).pdf

http://tuik.gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.do?id=8448



30

UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2010. Population Division, Population Estimates and Projections Sections, Population. [online] Available at: <http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/unpp/panel_population.htm> [Accessed 22 July 2012].

UN, EC, IMF, OECD and WB, 2003. Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting 2003. [pdf] Available at: <http://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/seea2003.pdf> [Accessed 21 July 2012].

UNFCC, 2012. Status of Ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, [online] Available at: <http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/status_of_ratification/items/2613.php> [Accessed 09 August 2012].

Xue, J., 2010. Arguments for and Against Economic Growth, 2nd Conference on Economic Degrowth for Ecological Sustainability and Social Equality, [pdf] Available at: <http://www.barcelona.degrowth.org/fileadmin/content/documents/Proceedings/Xue_Jin.pdf> [Accessed 09 August 2012].

Venkatachalam, L., 2007. Environmental economics and ecological economics: Where they can converge?. Ecological Economics, [e-journal] 61(2-3), pp.550-558. Available through: Uppsala University Library website <http://www.ub.uu.se> [Accessed 15 June 2012].

Wilkinson, R. and Pickett, K., 2009. The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Make Societies Stronger. New York: Bloomsbury Press.

WB, 2011. GDP growth (annual %). [online] Available at: < http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG> [Accessed 10 June 2012].

WCED, 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford Press.

Zweig, K., 1979. Smith, Malthus, Ricardo and Mill: The forrunners of limits to growth, Futures, [e-journal] 11(6) 510-523. Available through: Uppsala University Library website <http://www.ub.uu.se> [Accessed 15 June 2012].

http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/unpp/panel_population.htm

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/seea2003.pdf

http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/status_of_ratification/items/2613.php

http://www.barcelona.degrowth.org/fileadmin/content/documents/Proceedings/Xue_Jin.pdf


http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG


Sustainable Economies: The Case of Turkish Economy within - DiVA

Documents

Transcript of Sustainable Economies: The Case of Turkish Economy within - DiVA