Conceptualizing “Green economy” in Russian academic debate

ABSTRACT

Green economy (GE) is a fairly new concept in the domestic discussion in Russia, which has lagged behind other developed economies in terms of environmental governance. This article examines how GE is conceptualized in the Russian academic discussion and how this debate reflects international conceptualizations of the concept. Drawing on a coding frame inspired by the international literature on GE, we find that the Russian academic discussion tends to operate with what we call a strong interpretation of GE that is not yet sufficiently developed to underpin actual policy-making. Russian academics view GE as a solution to the environmental, social and as economic problems that stem largely from the country’s resource-exporting and industrial economy, and highlight problems with the quality of environmental administration. Finally, the benefits/threats thinking characteristic of the Russian environmental debate directs GE discussions toward environmentally weaker interpretations.

KEYWORDS:

• Green economy
• green growth
• Russia
• thematic analysis

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. This is the case elsewhere as, for instance, in Finland, but in Russia such a dedicated policy framework is part of the political tradition, which lends political credibility to the issue. For instance, regarding climate change Russia had the Climate Doctrine, and on energy efficiency the “State Program: Energy Efficiency and Energy Sector Development” for 2013–2020.

2. In Russia, business financed only 0.29% of gross domestic expenditure on R&D (GERD) as percentage of GDP in 2015, in comparison to 1.48% in the OECD on average, 1.54% in China and 1.79% in the United States. The government financed two-and-half times as much of GERD in Russia (0.76%) than did business, whereas OECD governments financed only 0.62%, China 0.44% and the USA 0.62% – much less than half of what the business sector financed (OECD 2017).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Norges forskningsråd [288249].