Over the last two decades, Turkey has enjoyed high rates of economic growth. This study uses “the adjusted net saving” approach to explore to what extent Turkey achieved this growth at the expense of rapid natural resource use and increased environmental pollution in violation of basic sustainability criteria. We examine the components of adjusted net savings (i.e., changes in physical, natural, and human capital) for the period 1970 to 2011 and consider the sectoral shifts resulting from capital investments and accompanying state policies that are driving industrialization in Turkey. We find that the so-called miracle growth in the 2000s has come at the expense of massive natural capital utilization. Although gross fixed capital formation has continued to grow, it has been accompanied by high depreciation, and thus, in the post-2000 period, the net accumulation of physical capital has followed a declining trend.
Acar, S. (2011, July 25). Natural resource abundance and its impact on development prospects (Unpublished PhD thesis). Institute of Social Sciences, Marmara University, Turkey.
2.
Acar, S., Kitson, L., & Bridle, R. (2015). Subsidies to coal and renewable energy in Turkey (International Institute for Sustainable Development [IISD]-Global Subsidies Initiative [GSI] Report). Retrieved from http://www.iisd.org/gsi/subsidies-coal-and-renewable-energy-turkey.
3.
Adaman, F., & Arsel, M. (2008). Küreselleşme ve kalkinma sürecinde Türkiye’de çevre politikaları: Aktörler ve faktörler [Environmental policies in Turkey in the process of globalization and development: Actors and factors]. In İ. Öztürk (Ed.), Türkiye’nin küreselleşmesi firsatlar ve tehditler [Turkey’s globalization opportunities and threats] (Publication No. 2008-1, Vol. 11, pp. 147–158). Istanbul, Turkey: Istanbul Chamber of Commerce.
4.
AdamanF.ArselM. (2010) Globalization, development, and environmental policies in Turkey. In: ÇetinT.YılmazF. (eds) Understanding the process of economic change in Turkey, New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers, pp. 319–335.
Aktar, C., & Baykan, B. B. (2012, September 5). The administrative and legal tools of development policy are not eco-friendly (Bahcesehir University Betam Research Brief 12/138). Istanbul, Turkey: Bahcesehir University Center for Economic and Social Research.
7.
ArıA.ZerenF. (2011) CO2 emisyonu ve ekonomik büyüme: Panel veri analizi. [Article in Turkish with an abstract in English: CO2 emission and economic growth: A panel data analysis]. Yönetim ve Ekonomi18(2): 37–47.
8.
AtıcıC.KurtF. (2007) Türkiye’nin diş ticareti ve çevre kirliliği: Çevresel Kuznets eğrisi yaklaşımı [Turkey’s foreign trade and environmental pollution: An environmental Kuznets curve approach]. Tarım Ekonomisi Dergisi13(2): 61–69.
9.
AtkinsonG.HamiltonK. (2003) Savings, growth and the resource curse hypothesis. World Development31(11): 1793–1807.
10.
AutyR. M.GelbA. H. (2001) Political economy of resource-abundant states. In: AutyR. M. (ed.) Resource abundance and economic development, New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 126–144.
11.
AydınZ. (2005) The state, civil society, and environmentalism. In: AdamanF.ArselM. (eds) Environmentalism in Turkey–Between democracy and development (Chapter 3, pp. 53–69), Aldershot, England: Ashgate.
12.
Balaban, O. (2008). Capital accumulation, the state and the production of built environment: The case of Turkey (PhD thesis). City and Regional Planning Department, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
13.
BarbierE. (1987) The concept of sustainable economic development. Environmental Conservation14: 101–110.
14.
BarbierE. B. (2010) Corruption and the political economy of resource-based development: A comparison of Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. Environmental and Resource Economics46: 511–537. doi:10.1007/s10640-010-9352-y.
15.
Baykan, B. G. (2008, May 8). Türkiye’de çevre: Sorunlar, aktörler ve yeni alanlar [Environment in Turkey: Problems, actors and new fields] (Bahcesehir University Betam Research Brief 08/5). Istanbul, Turkey: Bahcesehir University Center for Economic and Social Research.
16.
ÇağlarY. (2004) Türkiye’nin sürdürülebilir kalkinma olanaklari ve strateji önerileri [“Sustainable” development opportunities and strategies in Turkey]. İktisat İşletme ve Finans19(217): 46–63.
17.
DietzS.NeumayerE.SoysaI. (2007) Corruption, the resource curse and genuine saving. Environment and Development Economics12(1): 33–53.
18.
DuruB. (2010) Modern muhafazakarlik ve liberal politikalar arasinda doğal varliklar: AKP’nin çevre politikalarina bir bakiş. In: Uzgelİ.DuruB. (eds) AKP kitabı‒Bir dönüşümün bilançosu, 2nd ed. Ankara, Turkey: Phoenix, pp. 783–799.
19.
ErcanF. (2006) Bölgesel kalkinmada değişim: Devlet merkezli bölgesel kalkinmadan piyasa merkezli bölgesel birikime [Change in regional development: From state-centered regional development to market-centered regional accumulation]. In: ArıA. (ed.) Bölgesel kalkinma, politikalar ve yeni dinamikler [Regional development, policies and new dynamics], İstanbul, Turkey: Derin, pp. 45–116.
FankhauserS. (1994) Evaluating the social costs of greenhouse gas emissions. The Energy Journal15(2): 157–184.
22.
HalıcıoğluF. (2009) An econometric study of CO2 emissions, energy consumption, income and foreign trade in Turkey. Energy Policy37: 1156–1164.
23.
HamiltonK. (1994) Green adjustments to GDP. Resources Policy20: 155–168.
24.
HamiltonK. (1996) Pollution and pollution abatement in the national accounts. Review of Income and Wealth42(1): 13–33.
25.
HamiltonK.ClemensM. (1999) Genuine savings rates in developing countries. The World Bank Economic Review13(2): 333–356.
26.
HamiltonK.RutaG.TajibaevaL. (2006) Capital accumulation and resource depletion: A Hartwick rule counterfactual. Environmental and Resource Economics34: 517–533.
27.
HartwickJ. M. (1977) Intergenerational equity and the investing of rents from exhaustible resources. American Economic Review66: 972–974.
28.
HessP. (2010) Determinants of the adjusted net saving rate in developing economies. International Review of Applied Economics24: 591–608.
29.
HicksJ. R. (1946) Value and capital, 2nd ed. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
30.
HisarcıklılarM.Gültekin-KarakaşD.AşıcıA. A. (2014) Can FDI be a panacea for unemployment? The Turkish case. In: DereliT.Soykut-SarıcaP.Şen-TaşbaşıA. (eds) Labor and employment relations in a globalized world, London, England: Springer, pp. 43–70.
31.
IgnatowG. (2005) Economic dependency and environmental attitudes in Turkey. Environmental Politics14(5): 648–666.
32.
KalaycıoğluS.GönelF. (2005) The role of business in environmental policy-making. In: AdamanF.ArselM. (eds) Environmentalism in Turkey‒Between democracy and development (Chapter 7, pp. 117–129), Aldershot, England: Ashgate.
Lindmark, M., & Acar, S. (2013, February). Sustainability in the making? A historical estimate of Swedish sustainable and unsustainable development 1850–2010. Ecological Economics, 86, 176–187.
35.
McLaughlinE.HanleyN.GreasleyD.KunnasJ.OxleyL.WardeP. (2014) Historical wealth accounts for Britain: Progress and puzzles in measuring the sustainability of economic growth. Oxford Review of Economic Policy30(1): 44–69.
Özcan, E. R., & Kayman, S. (2008, May 8). Enerji tüketimindeki değişimin küresel isinmaya etkisi ve ABD, AB ülkeleri, Japonya, Çin ve Türkiye karşılaştırması: 1980–2004 [The impact of energy consumption on global warming and a comparison between the US, the EU countries, Japan, China, and Turkey: 1980–2004]. Paper presented at 13th International Students’ Conference on Economics, Ege University, İzmir, Turkey.
40.
OzverenE.NasS. E. (2012) Economic development and environmental policy in Turkey: An institutionalist critique. Cambridge Journal of Economics36: 1245–1266.
41.
Pamir, A. N. (2003, Temmuz). Dünyada ve Türkiye’de enerji, Türkiye’nin enerji kaynaklari ve enerji politikaları [Energy in the world and in Turkey, Turkey’s energy resources and energy policies]. Metalurji Dergisi, 134, 1–39. Retrieved from http://www.metalurji.org.tr/dergi/dergi134/d134_73100.pdf.
42.
PearceD. W.AtkinsonG. (1992) Are national economies sustainable? Measuring sustainable development (CSERGE Working Paper GEC 92-11), London, England: Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment.
43.
PearceD. W.AtkinsonG. (1993) Capital theory and the measurement of sustainable development: An indicator of weak sustainability. Ecological Economics8: 103–108.
44.
PearceD. W.MarkandyaA.BarbierE. B. (1989) Blueprint for a green economy, London, England: Earthscan.
45.
PezzeyJ. (1989) Economic analysis of sustainable growth and sustainable development (Working Paper 15), Washington, DC: World Bank, Environment Department.
46.
PuschB. (2005) The greening of Islamic politics: A godsend for the environment? In: AdamanF.ArselM. (eds) Environmentalism in Turkey–Between democracy and development (Chapter 3, pp. 131–145), Aldershot, England: Ashgate.
47.
Reyhan, H., & Mutlu, A. (2012, October). Türkiye’deki çokuluslu şirketlerin yatirimlarinin geleceği: Çevresel ve doğal kaynak yatirimlari üzerinden bir değerlendirme [The future of multinational corporation investments in Turkey: An evaluation of environmental and natural sources investments]. In International Conference on Eurasian Economies, Conference Proceedings (pp. 397–405). Almaty, Kazakhstan: Eurasian Economists Association.
48.
SachsJ. D.WarnerA. M. (1997) Fundamental sources of long-run growth. American Economic Review87(2): 184–188.
49.
TunçG. İ.Türüt-AşıkS.AkbostancıE. (2007) CO2 emissions vs. CO2 responsibility: An input–output approach for the Turkish economy. Energy Policy35: 855–868.
50.
van den BergH. (2012) Economic growth and development, 2nd ed. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.
51.
WeitzmanM. L. (1976) On the welfare significance of national product in a dynamic economy. Quarterly Journal of Economics90: 156–162.
Yıldız, S. (2015). The relationship between education and social stratification in Turkey (Unpublished master’s thesis). Economics Master Program, Social Science Institute, Istanbul Technical University, Turkey.
