Inconsistencies in the Dynamics of Sustainable Development Dimensions in Central and Eastern European Countries

Abstract

Sustainable development theory is formed around its major task of balancing the performances of economic, social and environmental sectors. The main aim of this integrative process is to offer consistent and healthy national progress. Besides the theory and the recommendations (abundant in the academic literature, but also in the political discourse) based on its main dimensions, the reality apparently reveals an irregular evolution of the economic, social and environment sectors' results. Observation of this evolution may represent a support for both mainstream sustainable

Environmental Performance in EU Countries from the Perspective of Its Relation to Human and Economic Wellbeing

“…Such an attitude should represent a moral and civic obligation, especially for the people involved in decision-making processes. This finding is consistent with that of Seifi [ 73 ], Stratan et al [ 108 ], Ulman et al [ 53 ], or Ulman et al [ 22 ]. These authors also emphasized the role of good governance for avoiding environmental degradation, as well as the need for more pro-environmentally oriented policies.…”

“…A sustainable society is one that registers high levels of economic, social, and environmental wellbeing. Fully aware of the fact that nations differ in their capacity of attaining economic, social, and environmental performances (see, for example, Van de Kerk and Manuel [ 21 ]; Ulman et al [ 22 , 23 ]), in detail, the first major aim of this paper was to compare the national levels between 2006 and 2019 in the EU member states, for establishing (1) national perspectives in terms of differences between the performances of the three sustainability dimensions, (2) similarities and differences among countries in this regard, and (3) evolution, from the perspective of time, of the three dimensions of sustainability within countries and also among them, between the two years of reference, i.e., 2006 and 2019. Consequently, we grouped the EU countries as a function of the economic, social, and environmental wellbeing recorded in 2006 and 2019.…”

“…Human wellbeing is defined as formed by nine components (see Van de Kerk and Manuel [ 21 ], as well as Kowalski and Veit [ 50 ]), analyzed in the literature in relation to the environment, as follows: sufficient amount of food [ 51 , 52 , 53 ], sufficient to drink [ 54 , 55 , 56 ], safe sanitation [ 22 , 53 , 57 ], education [ 22 , 53 , 58 , 59 ], health [ 22 , 53 , 60 , 61 , 62 ], gender equality [ 21 , 23 , 63 , 64 ], income distribution [ 20 , 22 , 53 , 65 , 66 , 67 ], population growth [ 53 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 ], and good governance [ 22 , 53 , 59 , 72 , 73 , 74 ] (see Table 2 ). For example, it was demonstrated that (1) the lack of safe sanitation represents a pollutant factor, negatively influencing environmental wellbeing [ 22 , 57 ], (2) the level of individual education registers positive effects on pro-environmental attitudes [ 58 , 59 , 75 ], while the number of students enrolled in education may influence enviro...…”

“…In addition, economic wellbeing integrates another five components (see Van de Kerk and Manuel [ 21 ], as well as Kowalski and Veit [ 50 ]), also analyzed in the literature of the field in close relation with their influence upon the environment: organic farming [ 22 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 ], genuine savings [ 82 , 83 , 84 ], gross domestic product [ 22 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 ], employment [ 22 , 89 , 90 ], and public debt [ 22 , 91 , 92 , 93 ] (see Table 3 ). For example, (1) the contradictory findings regarding the benefits of organic farming upon the environment [ 22 , 78 ], (2) the theory of the U-shaped relationship between national income and environmental degradation, supported by the results of studies such as those of Ulman et al [ 22 ] or Ergun and Rivas [ 88 ], (3) the expenses of growth, also including aspects other than GDP, for a satisfactory functioning of the economy–environment system [ 83 ], apparently harmful for the environment [ 22 ], (4) the potential conflict between environment and employment, as emphasized by Lawn [ 94 ], but not agreed on by other studies, considering unemployment as related to environmental taxes and, therefore, producing a lower financial support for its protection [ 89 , 90 ], and (5) public debt, representing a constraint for environmental quality [ 22 , 92 , 93 ], were pointed out across different studies.…”

“…As far as we know, there are no other studies focusing on the human and economic components of wellbeing as determinants for environmental wellbeing in the European Union, analyzed through similar lenses, with the main aim of offering a general perspective to this aspect. An almost similar approach was followed by Ulman et al [ 22 ], yet with a focus on the central and eastern European countries, as a group of nations that are currently in a developing process, with approximately similar national characteristics [ 22 ] (p. 6). In our opinion, this type of study is important because, as mentioned by Banerjee [ 96 ] (pp.…”