SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Eurasian Research Journal / 2026 / Volume: 8 Issue: 3

ECONOMIC GROWTH, RESOURCE EFFICIENCY, AND SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS STRATEGIES IN THE TURKIC REPUBLICS: EVIDENCE FROM MATERIAL FOOTPRINT COMPONENTS

Bülent Şen(TOKAT GAZIOSMANPASA UNIVERSITY)0000-0001-8561-8173
Mehmet Mert Türk(TOKAT GAZIOSMANPASA UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-0164-2131
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-07-29
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings reveal no stable long-run cointegration relationship under regime shifts, suggesting that growth–resource dynamics are shaped mainly by cyclical and structural factors rather than sustained decoupling.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study examines whether economic growth is associated with material pressure and resource efficiency in the Turkic Republics by focusing on disaggregated material footprint components (biomass, fossil fuels, metal ores, and non-metallic minerals) during the 1992–2024 period.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The causality results identify a statistically significant unidirectional causal relationship running from economic growth to non-metallic mineral consumption, highlighting the role of construction – and infrastructure-related material demand.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings reveal no stable long-run cointegration relationship under regime shifts, suggesting that growth–resource dynamics are shaped mainly by cyclical and structural factors rather than sustained decoupling.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2024 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Material footprint · Economic growth · Resource efficiency

Abstract

This study examines whether economic growth is associated with material pressure and resource efficiency in the Turkic Republics by focusing on disaggregated material footprint components (biomass, fossil fuels, metal ores, and non-metallic minerals) during the 1992–2024 period. Using second-generation panel econometric techniques that account for cross-sectional dependence, heterogeneity, and structural breaks, the study evaluates whether growth is associated with material decoupling in resource-intensive transition economies. The findings reveal no stable long-run cointegration relationship under regime shifts, suggesting that growth–resource dynamics are shaped mainly by cyclical and structural factors rather than sustained decoupling. The causality results identify a statistically significant unidirectional causal relationship running from economic growth to non-metallic mineral consumption, highlighting the role of construction – and infrastructure-related material demand. Overall, the results indicate limited evidence of sustained material decoupling and emphasize the need to complement emission-focused policies with material efficiency, circular economy practices, sustainable business strategies, green supply chains, and resource-efficient production.

🔖

Cite This Article

Şen, B., Türk, M. M. (2026). ECONOMIC GROWTH, RESOURCE EFFICIENCY, AND SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS STRATEGIES IN THE TURKIC REPUBLICS: EVIDENCE FROM MATERIAL FOOTPRINT COMPONENTS. Eurasian Research Journal, Volume: 8 Issue: 3. https://ajindex.com/articles/1483087

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (25)

  1. Abdi, A. H., Farah, S. O., & Mohamed, A. A. (2025). Dynamic and nonlinear effects of material footprints and raw material exports on load capacity factor: Do ICT and foreign direct investment matter? *Journal of Cleaner Production, 534*, 146997. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2025.146997
  2. Avcı, G. M. (2023). Malzeme Kuznets eğrisi hipotezi geçerli mi? CIVETS ülkelerinden ampirik kanıtlar [Is the material Kuznets curve hypothesis valid? Empirical evidence from CIVETS countries]. *Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (52)*, 336–351. https://doi.org/10.52642/susbed.1351678
  3. Breusch, T. S., & Pagan, A. R. (1980). The Lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics. *The Review of Economic Studies, 47*(1), 239–253. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297111
  4. Cialani, C., Mortazavi, R., & Sarcinella, F. (2025). Material footprint and circular economy for a sustainable consumption and production pattern. *Circular Economy and Sustainability, 5*(4), 2901–2920. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-025-00505-7
  5. Dada, J. T., & Al-Faryan, M. A. S. (2024). Linking per capita income, renewable energy, natural resources, trade, and urbanisation to material footprint: Insights from Saudi Arabia. *Energy Nexus, 13*, 100269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nexus.2023.100269
  6. Diriöz, A. O. (2022). An energy-focused alternative and complementary route to the Silk Road. *Eurasian Research Journal, 4*(2), 7–22. https://doi.org/10.53277/2519-2442-2022.2-01
  7. Emirmahmutoglu, F., & Kose, N. (2011). Testing for Granger causality in heterogeneous mixed panels. *Economic Modelling, 28*(3), 870–876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2010.10.018
  8. Giljum, S., Dittrich, M., Lieber, M., & Lutter, S. (2014). Global patterns of material flows and their socio-economic and environmental implications: A MFA study on all countries worldwide from 1980 to 2009. *Resources, 3*(1), 319–339. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources3010319
  9. Haberl, H., Wiedenhofer, D., Virág, D., Kalt, G., Plank, B., Brockway, P., Fishman, T., Hausknost, D., Krausmann, F., Leon-Gruchalski, B., Mayer, A., Pichler, M., Schaffartzik, A., Sousa, T., Streeck, J., & Creutzig, F. (2020). A systematic review of the evidence on decoupling of GDP, resource use and GHG emissions, part II: Synthesizing the insights. *Environmental Research Letters, 15*(6), 065003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab842a
  10. Hou, F., Khan, M. A., & Hayat, M. T. (2024). Empirical linkages among financial development, digital infrastructure, energy transition and natural resources footprints in BRICS region. *Resources Policy, 90*, 104748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2024.104748
  11. Karlilar, S., & Pata, U. K. (2025). Determinants of material footprint in OECD countries: The role of green innovation and environmental taxes. *Natural Resources Forum, 49*(1), 100–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-8947.12379
  12. Kassouri, Y., Alola, A. A., & Savaş, S. (2021). The dynamics of material consumption in phases of the economic cycle for selected emerging countries. Resources Policy, 70, 101918. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101918
  13. Krausmann, F., Gingrich, S., Eisenmenger, N., Erb, K.-H., Haberl, H., & Fischer-Kowalski, M. (2009). Growth in global materials use, GDP and population during the 20th century. Ecological Economics, 68(10), 2696–2705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.05.007
  14. Nagano, H., Ali, S. H., & Oliveira, J. A. P. de. (2025). Decoupling material consumption from economic development? Evidence of dematerialization from a multi-decade analysis of 176 countries. Carbon Footprints, 4, 26. https://doi.org/10.20517/cf.2025.36
  15. OECD. (2024). Environment at a glance in the EU Eastern Partnership countries: Measuring progress towards a green transformation. https://doi.org/10.1787/aa7c00b1-en
  16. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels (Cambridge Working Papers in Economics No. 0435). Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.5113
  17. Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), 265–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.951
  18. Pesaran, M. H., Ullah, A., & Yamagata, T. (2008). A bias-adjusted LM test of error cross-section independence. The Econometrics Journal, 11(1), 105–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1368-423X.2007.00227.x
  19. Pesaran, M. H., & Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142(1), 50–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.010
  20. Pothen, F., & Welsch, H. (2019). Economic development and material use: Evidence from international panel data. World Development, 115, 107–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.06.008
  21. Rahman, M. M., Kilic, C., Akcan, A. T., & Kazak, H. (2025). Factors affecting the material footprint in G7 countries: Panel cointegration approach with Fourier function. Environmental Quality Management, 34(3), e70067. https://doi.org/10.1002/tqem.70067
  22. Regueiro-Ferreira, R. M., & Alonso-Fernández, P. (2023). Interaction between renewable energy consumption and dematerialization: Insights based on the material footprint and the Environmental Kuznets Curve. Energy, 266, 126477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.126477
  23. Sahoo, M., Saini, S., & Villanthenkodath, M. A. (2021). Determinants of material footprint in BRICS countries: An empirical analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(28), 37689–37704. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-13309-7
  24. Schandl, H., Fischer-Kowalski, M., West, J., Giljum, S., Dittrich, M., Eisenmenger, N., Geschke, A., Lieber, M., Wieland, H., Schaffartzik, A., Krausmann, F., Gierlinger, S., Hosking, K., Lenzen, M., Tanikawa, H., Miatto, A., & Fishman, T. (2018). Global material flows and resource productivity: Forty years of evidence. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 22(4), 827–838. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12626
  25. Zhang, C., Chen, W.-Q., Liu, G., & Zhu, D.-J. (2017). Economic growth and the evolution of material cycles: An analytical framework integrating material flow and stock indicators. Ecological Economics, 140, 265–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.04.021