Vol. 11 No. 3 (2023): Business & Management Studies: An International Journal
Articles

Performance analysis of sustainable development policies in OECD countries using the ARAS method

PDF (Türkçe)
  • Hilal Alpdoğan
Hilal Alpdoğan
Assist. Prof. Dr., Sakarya University of Applied Sciences, Sakarya, Türkiye
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v11i3.2285

Published 2023-09-24

Keywords

  • Sürdürülebilirlik, Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma, Çok Kriterli Karar Verme, Çevresel Ekonomi, OECD
  • Sustainability, Sustainable Development, Multi-Criteria Decision Making, Environmental Economics, OECD

How to Cite

Alpdoğan, H. (2023). Performance analysis of sustainable development policies in OECD countries using the ARAS method . Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 11(3), 1079–1103. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v11i3.2285

Copyright (c) 2023 Hilal Alpdoğan

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Abstract

Sustainable development, conceptualized for the first time at the 1972 United Nations (UN) Conference, took centre stage in countries' development policies with the UN's announcement of the "2030 Sustainable Development Goals" in 2016. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), aiming to be achieved by the end of 2030, came into effect as of January 2016. Encompassing 17 primary objectives, the Sustainable Development Goals have been incorporated into countries' development plans, highlighting the concept of sustainability in targeted policies. This study aims to demonstrate the effectiveness of OECD countries' economic, social, and environmental policies within the sustainability framework. Towards this goal, performance analysis was conducted using the ARAS Method, one of the multi-criteria decision-making techniques. The analysis evaluated five economic, six social, and eight environmental criteria in three separate categories and collectively. This method was utilized to assess countries' performance in various policy areas objectively. Furthermore, based on the analysis results considering all 19 criteria together, it is observed that the three most effective countries in sustainable development policies are New Zealand, Korea, and Iceland. These countries stand out as performers closer to economic, social, and environmental sustainability goals. On the other hand, based on the analysis results, the three least successful countries are the United States, Canada, and Turkey. These countries are evaluated as nations that need more effort to implement sustainable development policies.

PDF (Türkçe)

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Altın, H. (2020). A comparison of performance results of ARAS and MOOSRA methods: American continent countries. Finance and Accounting, 7(2), 173-186.
  2. Akbulut, F., ve Çölgeçen, B. (2023). Birleşmiş Milletler 2030 sürdürülebilir kalkınma hedeflerinin ulusal kamu politikalarına dönüştürülmesi çerçevesinde bölgesel kalkınma planlarının rolü. Marmara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilimler Dergisi, 11(1), 200-220.
  3. Akgül, U. (2010). Sürdürülebilir kalkınma: Uygulamalı antropolojinin eylem alanı. Antropoloji, (24), 133-164.
  4. Akyol, H., ve Tekman, N. (2021). Ülkelerin sürdürülebilir kalkınma hedefleri ile yoksulluklar ve gelir eşitsizliği ilişkisinin incelenmesi: Driscoll-Kraay yöntemi örneği. Aydın İktisat Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(2), 99-116.
  5. Ateş, S.A. ve Derinkuyu, K. (2021). Green growth and OECD countries: Measurement of country performances through distance-based analysis (DBA). Environment, Development and Sustainability, 23 (10), 15062–15073. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01285-4
  6. Avcı, T., ve Ergen, E. (2022). Kalkınma planlarının çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleriyle araştırılması. Pamukkale Üniversitesi İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 9(1), 90-106.
  7. Bakırcı, F., Ekinci, E. D., ve Şahinoğlu, T. (2014). Bölgesel kalkınma politikalarının etkinliği: Türkiye alt bölgeler bazında bir uygulama the effectiveness of regional development policies: An application on sub-regions of Turkey. Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 18(2), 281-298.
  8. Çakır, E., ve Can, M. (2019). Best-worst yöntemine dayalı ARAS yöntemi ile dış kaynak kullanım tercihinin belirlenmesi: Turizm sektöründe bir uygulama. Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 23(3), 1273-1300.
  9. Dalal-Clayton, B., ve Bass, S. (2002). Sustainable Development Strategies. Earthscan Publications.
  10. Eppel, J. (1999). Sustainable development and environment: A renewed effort in the OECD. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1, 41-53.
  11. Feng, C., Wang, M., Liu, G. C., ve Huang, J. B. (2017). Green development performance and its influencing factors: A global perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 144, 323-333.
  12. Göksu, G. G. (2022). A cross-country analysis of green public finance management and budgeting in supporting sustainable development. TCA Journal/Sayıştay Dergisi, 33(126), 409-441 https://doi.org/10.52836/sayistay. 1170928
  13. Kim, S. E., Kim, H., ve Chae, Y. (2014). A new approach to measuring green growth: Application to the OECD and Korea. Futures, 63, 37-48.
  14. Koçak, D. (2020). Green Growth Dynamics in OECD Countries: An Application of Grey Relational Analysis. Grey Systems: Theory and Application, 10(4), 545-563.
  15. Ma, L., Long, H., Chen, K., Tu, S., Zhang, Y., ve Liao, L. (2019). Green Growth Efficiency of Chinese Cities and Its Spatio-Temporal Pattern. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 146, 441-451.
  16. McKenzie, S. (2004). Social Sustainability: Towards Some Definitions. Hawke Research Institute.
  17. Megyesiova, S., ve Lieskovska, V. (2018). Analysis of the sustainable development indicators in the OECD countries. Sustainability, 10(12), 45-54.
  18. Miola, A., ve Schiltz, F. (2019). Measuring sustainable development goals performance: How to monitor policy action in the 2030 agenda implementation?. Ecological Economics, 164, 106373.
  19. Omer, A. M. (2008). Energy, environment and sustainable development. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 12(9), 2265-2300.
  20. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. 1998. OECD Environment Ministers: Shared Goals for Action, SG/COM/NEWS (98)39, OECD, Paris, (April).
  21. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. 2016. Energy and Air Pollution: World Energy Outlook Special Report 2016.
  22. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. 2022. The Short and Winding Road to 2030: Measuring Distance to the SDG Targets.
  23. Paz, T. D. S. R., Caiado, R. G. G., Quelhas, O. L. G., Gavião, L. O., ve Lima, G. B. A. (2021). Assessment of sustainable development through a multi-criteria approach: Application in brazilian municipalities. Journal of Environmental Management, 282, 111954.
  24. Redclift, M. (1987). Sustainable Development: Exploring the Contradictions. London: Routledge.
  25. Rogers, P. P., Jalal, K. F., ve Boyd, J. A. (2012). An Introduction to Sustainable Development. Earthscan.
  26. Sachs, J., Lafortune, G., Kroll, C., Fuller, G. ve Woelm, F., (2022). From crisis to sustainable development: the SDGs as road map to 2030 and beyond. Sustainable Development Report 2022. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  27. Skvarciany, V., Lapinskaitė, I., ve Volskytė, G. (2021). Circular economy as assistance for sustainable development in OECD countries. Oeconomia Copernicana, 1, 11-34.
  28. Şahin, K., ve Candan, G. (2023). Performance analysis for the organization of Turkic states member countries in the context of power elements and suggestions in terms of smart power. Management and Political Sciences Review, 5(1), 55-80.
  29. Torkayesh, A. E., Alizadeh, R., and Soltanisehat, L. (2022). Assessing entrepreneurial performance of G7 countries under context of social sustainable development goals: A multicriteria decision analysis approach. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.
  30. World Bank. (1992). Governance and Development. The World Bank.
  31. Zavadskas, E. K., ve Turskis, Z. (2010). A new additive ratio assessment (ARAS) method in multi-criteria decision‐making. Technological and economic development of economy, 16(2), 159-172.