An Approximation to the Environmental Impact of Economic Growth Using the Material Flow Analysis: Differences between Production and Consumption Methods, Applied to China, United Kingdom and USA (1990–2017)

sustainability Article An Approximation to the Environmental Impact of Economic Growth Using the Material Flow Analysis: Differences between Production and Consumption Methods, Applied to China, United Kingdom and USA (1990–2017) Pablo Alonso-Fernández * and Rosa María Regueiro-Ferreira   Citation: Alonso-Fernández, P.; Regueiro-Ferreira, R.M. An Approximation to the Environmental Impact of Economic Growth Using the Material Flow Analysis: Differences between Production and Consumption Methods, Applied to China, United Kingdom and USA (1990–2017). Sustainability 2021,13, 5489. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su13105489 Academic Editor: Luigi Aldieri Received: 20 April 2021 Accepted: 11 May 2021 Published: 14 May 2021 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). Applied Economy Department, Faculty of Economics, North Campus, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, 15782 Santiago de Compostela, Spain; rosamaria.r[email protected] *Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +34-655-491-876 Abstract: The relationship between economic growth and environmental impact has become a recurrent subject of research in recent years. Currently, results that indicate that the accumulation of economic growth leads to a reduction in environmental impact coexist with others that do not show any evidence in this respect. This paper aims to analyse this relationship using Material Flow Analysis through the two most frequent methods: territorial or production and consumption. For this purpose, data from China, the United Kingdom and the USA from 1990–2017 are used. The results show that the method used influences the conclusions, mainly due to differences in the accounting of physical trade flows. The production method, in which physical trade flows coincide with monetary trade flows, tends to underestimate the material consumption of rich, importing countries, while overestimating that of exporting countries. Policies based on this method have limited capacity to reduce global environmental impacts. The consumption method allows the environmental impact to be allocated to each country in a way that is more in line with its true material requirements. Keywords: economic growth; environmental impact; material flow analysis; dematerialisation; delocalisation; offshoring 1. Introduction Since the Industrial Revolution, the impact of economic activity on nature has continued to grow, and it was not until the second half of the 20th century that the problem began to receive attention [ 1 – 3 ]. The realisation of phenomena associated with climate change and the first situations of scarcity of certain resources were decisive situations for the preservation of the environment to begin to appear as an objective of many governments and institutions [ 4 – 7 ]. At the end of the 1980s, the concept of sustainable development was defined, proposing environmentally friendly economic growth without compromising the needs of future generations [ 3 ]. At the same time, different studies were developed that related economic growth with the reduction of environmental impact, such as that of Shafik and Bandyopadhyay [ 4 ] or that of Panayotou [ 5 ], who used for the first time the so-called Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) in his analyses. The EKC hypotheses indicate that environmental impact maintains an inverse relationship with GDP in countries with subsistence economies, evolving jointly as development increases, until a turning point is reached, from which the relationship is reversed [ 5 ]. Thus, thanks to specialisation in technology-intensive industries and the service sector, brought about by the rise of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs), economies with high levels of development would be able to reduce their dependence on the environment [ 5 , 6 ]. The EKC hypothesis has made the relationship between GDP and environmental impact the subject of many studies. There are many studies that verify the EKC hypotheses, mostly focused on a territorial or local production approach and on rich countries Sustainability 2021,13, 5489. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105489 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2021,13, 5489 2 of 21 or countries with particular characteristics (small size or high sectoral specialisation, for example) [ 7 – 9 ]. Paradoxically, the decoupling of GDP and environmental impacts is more significant in periods of recession or low economic growth [ 10 ]. Moreover, there is more evidence of decoupling when analysing waste and emissions [ 11 , 12 ] than when analysing material consumption [13]. On the other hand, the field of ecological economics is more sceptical about the ability of policies based on sustainable development to reduce environmental impacts [ 10 , 14 – 16 ]. From this perspective, a common problem in studies is the effect of high GDP in rich countries on efficiency indicators, which leads to an overestimation of the sustainability of rich countries, even though their environmental impact is higher than that of less developed countries [ 17 – 19 ]. Thus, efficiency gains do not necessarily imply a lower environmental impact in absolute terms [ 18 , 20 , 21 ]. On the other hand, studies conducted on a global scale show that the global environmental impact has continued to grow [ 19 , 22 ], while analyses based on the final consumption perspective attribute a greater environmental impact to rich countries than those using a territorial approach [ 18 , 19 , 23 , 24 ]. In this sense, work based on local production has limitations when it comes to considering the effects of international trade and the relocation of production on the distribution of environmental impact [ 23 – 26 ]. There are multiple ways to measure the impact of economic activity on the environment, but most can be classified as input (resources extracted from nature) or output (waste discharged into nature) methods [ 27 ]. The research presented in this article focuses on the analysis from an input perspective, studying material flows using the tools of Material Flow Analysis (MFA). Although material flows do not provide specific information about the impact of socio-economic activity on nature, they are appropriate to approximate the pressure exerted by socio-economic activity on the environment [ 23 ]. Material Flow Analysis (MFA) is a method developed by Ayres and Kneese [28] in the framework of the study of economic externalities, which has subsequently been repeatedly updated [ 29 – 34 ], in a process that is still ongoing today. Based on the concept of socio-economic metabolism, which draws an analogy with human societies and living organisms to analyse the relationships between them and nature, the MFA makes it possible to obtain the physical accounting associated with the socio-economic activity of a territory [ 35 – 37 ]. Material flows are a key element in the field of socio-economic metabolism, as they act as a physical link between societies and nature [ 27 ]. Like any living organism, a society can live using only renewable resources, so it will generate waste that nature’s own mechanisms can transform into reusable resources. However, the exploitation of non-renewable resources has become widespread, causing a double problem: on the one hand, the rate of replenishment of these resources is considerably lower than the rate of exploitation; on the other hand, the waste they generate is not easily assimilated by nature and can cause significant damage to it [ 20 ]. Moreover, according to the laws of thermodynamics, the problem of replenishment is much more serious, because each time a resource is used, the energy it contains is irreversibly degraded [38]. The aim of this paper is to analyse whether economic growth becomes independent of environmental impact, measured through material flows, as the level of development increases and the economic structure of a country changes. The study will be carried out with data from three countries, China, United Kingdom and the USA, for the period between 1990 and 2017, using the MFA through the production and consumption methods. The added value of this research lies in the comparison of the two most frequent MFA methods in a heterogeneous group of countries, which are at different points in the evolution of the relationship between economic growth and environmental impact, following the EKC hypotheses. This will make it possible not only to study the relationship between economic growth and material consumption, but also the influence of each approach on the analysis. Sustainability 2021,13, 5489 3 of 21 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Material Flow Analysis There are different methods for assigning the corresponding environmental impact to each territory. Depending on the method used, the material flows of each territory may vary. In this work, the MFA is carried out using the two most common methods, the territorial or production method and the consumption method, which will make it possible to study the differences between the results of the two approaches. The production approach is the one most widely used by most institutions, as well as the one on which most climate policies are based. This method assigns to each territory the materials consumed in domestic production processes, discounting the final weight of exported goods, and adding that of imported goods [ 18 , 23 , 34 , 39 , 40 ]. In this way, the material flows collected in the trade section correspond to monetary flows [41]. The main indicators of the MFA are: • Domestic Extraction (DE): is the sum of all materials, biotic and abiotic, extracted from nature and used in economic activity [ 18 , 23 , 34 , 41 , 42 ]. It is common to both approaches; • Domestic Material Consumption (DMC): results from adding physical imports to EI and deducting exports. Additionally, known as apparent consumption, it includes the materials used in domestic production, including imported products, and excluding exports [20–24]; • Physical Trade Balance (PTB): it is the difference between material imports and exports [ 18 , 19 , 23 , 34 , 42 , 43 ]. It is constructed inversely to the monetary trade balance because physical flows move in the opposite direction to monetary flows, so its interpretation is also inverse to the usual one [23,42,44]. Using the MFA indicators, other indicators can be composed to analyse the relationship between material flows and economic growth. The most used are efficiency indicators, such as material productivity (GDP/DMC) or material intensity (DMC/GDP) [ 23 ]. However, these indicators do not show whether efficiency is improved by a reduction in material consumption. Therefore, they can lead to the interpretation that the sustainability of an economy improves, even if it increases resource consumption, if GDP grows more [17]. Another common way of analysing the evolution of an economy’s material requirements is by looking at the degree of decoupling between GDP and the DMC. Decoupling occurs when the amount of material resources used per unit of GDP decreases [ 45 – 47 ]. This can occur when the DMC increases, but to a lesser extent than GDP, which is known as relative or weak decoupling, or when the DMC decreases, which is known as absolute or strong decoupling [ 19 , 23 , 45 , 48 ]. It is important to make this distinction because, although in both cases there is an improvement in efficiency, only in the case of absolute decoupling is material consumption reduced [ 23 ]. Although dematerialisation is often used as a synonym for decoupling, this only makes sense in the case of absolute decoupling, otherwise material consumption has increased [49]. The degree of decoupling can be analysed by comparing the cumulative growth rates of GDP and DMC over a time interval. For comparisons between territories, it is more practical to use a single indicator such as the decoupling ratio [ 48 ], which is constructed as follows: Decoupling ratio = (DMC/GDP)end of period/(DMC/GDP)beginning of period Values below one indicates that there is decoupling in the period under consideration, although they do not indicate whether the decoupling is relative or absolute [ 47 ]. It is important to note that the indicators obtained using the production method only reflect the final weight of traded goods. Therefore, materials used in production but not incorporated in the final good are not captured in physical trade flows [25,28–30]. In contrast, the consumption method imputes to each territory the materials used in the production of the goods consumed by its domestic demand [ 24 ]. Thus, physical Sustainability 2021,13, 5489 4 of 21 trade flows include all the materials that are part of the production process of each good, whether they are part of the final good or not [ 18 , 41 , 42 ]. The physical trade flows that are not captured by the production method are known as indirect flows, because they are not deducted directly, but need to be estimated by looking for the equivalent raw materials in terms of domestic extraction in each territory [ 18 , 19 , 34 , 41 , 42 ]. The indicator for material consumption obtained through the consumption method is known as the Material Footprint and is constructed like the DMC, but accounting for indirect flows in the PTB [ 19 , 34 , 50 ]. The Material Footprint allows to check the materials that each country needs to mobilise to satisfy its final demand, providing more information about the effects of international trade on material flows [18,19,23,34,51]. 2.2. Data This paper analyses the period from 1990 to 2017, using data from the Global Material Flows Database [ 52 ] for the United Kingdom, the USA and China. To facilitate comparability, per capita data will be used where possible and GDP in constant 2010 USD. The period selected is a matter of data availability, as indicators from the consumption perspective are only available since 1990. On the other hand, this period includes relevant economic events such as China’s accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) or the 2008 crisis. The countries chosen are of great importance in economic history and have a global influence in many social and cultural aspects. The United Kingdom was the scene of the Industrial Revolution and the first industrial economic power in history, although today it is a service-sector economy. The USA is the country that took over from the United Kingdom at the industrial forefront and the birthplace of mass production and consumption. As in the UK, industry has declined in importance in favour of service-sector activities, but it still retains great importance on a global scale, especially in areas such as R&D. In contrast, China has been a country with little industrial presence until less than half a century ago. With a different economic organisation to that of the main developed countries, its growth from 1980 to the present day has been enormous, driven by an industry that has condensed multiple stages in barely 40 years to compete in the most cutting-edge technologies today. The countries selected allow for the analysis of three very heterogeneous economies that reflect different characteristics typical of many other economies, facilitating the adaptation of the methodology used to other territories. The United Kingdom is a small country with a high population density and a small resource endowment, which means that it depends on production in other countries [ 53 ]. This makes it easier to maintain a contained environmental impact [ 53 , 54 ]. The USA is a very large country with a marked duality in population distribution and a large but declining productive capacity. It also has a remarkable endowment of natural resources, despite which it is a major importer of multiple materials, such as oil [ 55 ]. It is one of the countries with the greatest environmental impact [ 56 ]. China is also a very large country with a duality like that of the USA in its population distribution [ 57 ]. Its productive capacity is enormous, as is its endowment of natural resources, although it needs to import certain materials in large quantities [ 58 ]. Together with the USA, it is one of the leading countries in terms of environmental impact [56]. In the years leading up to the 1990s there are some important changes for the context of this paper. In the 1970s, the evolution of oil prices provoked a crisis in most developed countries that particularly affected industry. The subsequent liberalisation of financial activity and the evolution of ICTs favoured the delocalisation of productive activities, increasingly detaching the physical location of the activity from the place where it generates value [ 59 ]. The fragmentation of production on a global scale means that many multinationals only maintain their management and service activities in their countries of origin, giving rise to a new form of organisation of production known as Global Value Chains (GVC) [ 60 ]. The high profitability of the financial sector affected the productive structure of Western countries, reducing the importance of the industrial sector and subordinating it to financial logic, a process known as the financialisaton of the economy [61–63]. Sustainability 2021,13, 5489 5 of 21 In China, the late 1970s saw the beginning of a process of reform of the economic system characterised by gradualism and the importance of the external sector [ 64 – 66 ]. Foreign investment has been one of the key factors in the Chinese development process, being the source of the technological transfers that have allowed local industry to evolve [64,65] . Initially, foreign investment was allowed in a limited way and in specific areas, shaping an industrial sector oriented towards manufacturing exports and concentrated in coastal areas, which fostered an important phenomenon of urbanisation of the population [ 57 , 67 ]. Accession to the WTO in the early 2000s is another key to China’s development, as it led to a qualitative and quantitative leap in its export sector [ 65 ]. At the same time, it facilitated investments in sectors with a higher technological content, for which China is attractive thanks to its low wage costs and the potential of its large domestic market [ 68 ]. In recent five-year plans, new priorities have emerged, such as a focus on domestic demand over the external sector and on an industry capable of competing on quality rather than quantity. More recently, Chinese government planning has begun to incorporate the goal of reducing environmental impact through investment in renewable energy sources and the development of the service sector [69,70]. 3. Results and Discussion 3.1. Production Method Domestic extraction is independent of the approach used in the MFA, as it does not depend on international trade. From an output perspective, trade does not usually have a very large effect on the DMC, so there are no major differences with respect to DE. Figure 1 shows how both series evolve in a very similar way in all countries. Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 22 value [59]. The fragmentation of production on a global scale means that many multinationals only maintain their management and service activities in their countries of origin, giving rise to a new form of organisation of production known as Global Value Chains (GVC) [60]. The high profitability of the financial sector affected the productive structure of Western countries, reducing the importance of the industrial sector and subordinating it to financial logic, a process known as the financialisaton of the economy [61–63]. In China, the late 1970s saw the beginning of a process of reform of the economic system characterised by gradualism and the importance of the external sector [64–66]. Foreign investment has been one of the key factors in the Chinese development process, being the source of the technological transfers that have allowed local industry to evolve [64,65]. Initially, foreign investment was allowed in a limited way and in specific areas, shaping an industrial sector oriented towards manufacturing exports and concentrated in coastal areas, which fostered an important phenomenon of urbanisation of the population [57,67]. Accession to the WTO in the early 2000s is another key to China's development, as it led to a qualitative and quantitative leap in its export sector [65]. At the same time, it facilitated investments in sectors with a higher technological content, for which China is attractive thanks to its low wage costs and the potential of its large domestic market [68]. In recent five-year plans, new priorities have emerged, such as a focus on domestic demand over the external sector and on an industry capable of competing on quality rather than quantity. More recently, Chinese government planning has begun to incorporate the goal of reducing environmental impact through investment in renewable energy sources and the development of the service sector [69,70]. 3. Results and Discussion 3.1. Production Method Domestic extraction is independent of the approach used in the MFA, as it does not depend on international trade. From an output perspective, trade does not usually have a very large effect on the DMC, so there are no major differences with respect to DE. Figure 1 shows how both series evolve in a very similar way in all countries. Figure 1. EI and DMC per capita, tonnes. Source: own elaboration based on data from Global Material Flows Database [52]. Two different trends can be distinguished. On the one hand, the USA and the United Kingdom maintain a declining trajectory for most of the series, with a turning point in 2008, coinciding with the 2008 Crisis. It is noteworthy that the USA values are much higher and are notably more influenced by the 2008 Crisis. Nevertheless, in recent years oil ex- Figure 1. EI and DMC per capita, tonnes. Source: own elaboration based on data from Global Material Flows Database [52]. Two different trends can be distinguished. On the one hand, the USA and the United Kingdom maintain a declining trajectory for most of the series, with a turning point in 2008, coinciding with the 2008 Crisis. It is noteworthy that the USA values are much higher and are notably more influenced by the 2008 Crisis. Nevertheless, in recent years oil extraction has increased, thanks to techniques such as fracking, promoted by the government as part of its goal of achieving energy independence [ 55 , 71 ]. In the United Kingdom, the downward trend is due to the decline of the coal industry and sector. During the 1980s, most mines were closed, and coal was progressively replaced by other imported energy sources, such as gas [ 72 ]. Moreover, part of the difference in extraction and consumption values between the USA and the United Kingdom can be explained by territorial distribution: while the USA has a large surface area and a large endowment of resources, the United Kingdom has a much smaller territory and is poorer in material Sustainability 2021,13, 5489 6 of 21 resources. Consequently, the population density of the United Kingdom is much higher, facilitating a lower consumption of resources in transport, while at the same time it needs to outsource many production processes due to spatial issues, which reduces its DMC [ 53 , 54 ]. On the other hand, China’s trend is increasing and, although starting from very low levels, it has overtaken the USA in recent years. China’s extraction and consumption are driven by the rapid growth of its economy, which demands large quantities of practically all groups of materials. Of note is the extraction and consumption of non-metallic minerals, which include the materials needed to produce cement, as China is by far the largest consumer of this material in recent years [ 73 ], due to the major infrastructure and city construction process still underway in the country. The PTB corresponds to the difference between the EI and the DMC and provides information about the effects of international trade on consumption. Figure 2shows that all three countries show physical surpluses throughout the series, implying that they are net importers of materials. Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 22 traction has increased, thanks to techniques such as fracking, promoted by the government as part of its goal of achieving energy independence [55,71]. In the United Kingdom, the downward trend is due to the decline of the coal industry and sector. During the 1980s, most mines were closed, and coal was progressively replaced by other imported energy sources, such as gas [72]. Moreover, part of the difference in extraction and consumption values between the USA and the United Kingdom can be explained by territorial distribution: while the USA has a large surface area and a large endowment of resources, the United Kingdom has a much smaller territory and is poorer in material resources. Consequently, the population density of the United Kingdom is much higher, facilitating a lower consumption of resources in transport, while at the same time it needs to outsource many production processes due to spatial issues, which reduces its DMC [53,54]. On the other hand, China's trend is increasing and, although starting from very low levels, it has overtaken the USA in recent years. China's extraction and consumption are driven by the rapid growth of its economy, which demands large quantities of practically all groups of materials. Of note is the extraction and consumption of non-metallic minerals, which include the materials needed to produce cement, as China is by far the largest consumer of this material in recent years [73], due to the major infrastructure and city construction process still underway in the country. The PTB corresponds to the difference between the EI and the DMC and provides information about the effects of international trade on consumption. Figure 2 shows that all three countries show physical surpluses throughout the series, implying that they are net importers of materials. Figure 2. PTB, tonnes per capita. X: exports, M: imports. Source: own elaboration based on data from Global Material Flows Database [52]. The United Kingdom's scarce resource endowment and the decline of its industry mean that it needs to import all kinds of products. In the USA, trade flows are mainly determined by fossil fuels and metal ores. After the 2008 crisis, consumption of metal ores fell significantly and dragged down imports, while the focus on domestic fuel extraction reduced external dependence, even allowing exports to increase. China's surplus grows as it reaches higher levels of development, through imports of resources such as oil and certain food products. More recently, the development of the steel and aluminium industries has made China a major importer of metal ores. Figure 2. PTB, tonnes per capita. X: exports, M: imports. Source: own elaboration based on data from Global Material Flows Database [52]. The United Kingdom’s scarce resource endowment and the decline of its industry mean that it needs to import all kinds of products. In the USA, trade flows are mainly determined by fossil fuels and metal ores. After the 2008 crisis, consumption of metal ores fell significantly and dragged down imports, while the focus on domestic fuel extraction reduced external dependence, even allowing exports to increase. China’s surplus grows as it reaches higher levels of development, through imports of resources such as oil and certain food products. More recently, the development of the steel and aluminium industries has made China a major importer of metal ores. In terms of efficiency, the United Kingdom performs the best, well above the USA, as can be seen in Figure 3. China is still far behind these countries, weighed down by heavy investment in infrastructure. It is important to note that, as discussed above, efficiency indicators that directly compare GDP and DMC tend to favour more developed countries, as their high GDP level smooths the DMC [9]. To obtain information on the evolution of a country’s material requirements, it is more appropriate to analyse the degree of decoupling through the growth rates of GDP and the DMC. Table 1shows the values of the decoupling ratio for the three countries in the time interval studied. Sustainability 2021,13, 5489 7 of 21 Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 22 In terms of efficiency, the United Kingdom performs the best, well above the USA, as can be seen in Figure 3. China is still far behind these countries, weighed down by heavy investment in infrastructure. It is important to note that, as discussed above, efficiency indicators that directly compare GDP and DMC tend to favour more developed countries, as their high GDP level smooths the DMC [9]. Figure 3. (a) Material intensity, Kg/USD. (b) Material productivity, USD/kg. Source: own elaboration based on data from Global Material Flows Database [52]. To obtain information on the evolution of a country's material requirements, it is more appropriate to analyse the degree of decoupling through the growth rates of GDP and the DMC. Table 1 shows the values of the decoupling ratio for the three countries in the time interval studied. Table 1. Decoupling ratio (1990–2017). Source: own elaboration based on data from Global Material Flows Database [52]. Country Ratio (DMC) 1990–2017 United Kingdom 0.37 USA 0.49 China 0.44 The decoupling ratio indicates that decoupling occurs in all three cases. As would be expected from its DMC, the United Kingdom has the highest degree of decoupling. More striking is the case of China, which performs better than the USA despite the high growth rate of its DMC. As in the case of the efficiency indicators, the relative nature of this indicator means that a high growth rate of the DMC can be diluted by an even higher GDP growth rate and show as sustainable territories that consume increasing and very high quantities of materials. The best way to assess a country’s sustainability is to analyse whether dematerialisation occurs. Figure 4 shows the graphical representation of GDP and DMC growth rates for each country, which allows us to analyse both decoupling and dematerialisation. It can be seen how, once again, the 2008 crisis represents a turning point: in the USA, it is the point from which dematerialisation occurs, while in the United Kingdom, which is at dematerialisation values throughout the series, the decline in the DMC intensifies. It is common for periods of low growth or recession to favour dematerialisation in the most developed countries [10]. On the other hand, the 2008 crisis meant an increase in the Figure 3. ( a ) Material intensity, Kg/USD. ( b ) Material productivity, USD/kg. Source: own elaboration based on data from Global Material Flows Database [52]. Table 1. Decoupling ratio (1990–2017). Source: own elaboration based on data from Global Material Flows Database [52]. Country Ratio (DMC) 1990–2017 United Kingdom 0.37 USA 0.49 China 0.44 The decoupling ratio indicates that decoupling occurs in all three cases. As would be expected from its DMC, the United Kingdom has the highest degree of decoupling. More striking is the case of China, which performs better than the USA despite the high growth rate of its DMC. As in the case of the efficiency indicators, the relative nature of this indicator means that a high growth rate of the DMC can be diluted by an even higher GDP growth rate and show as sustainable territories that consume increasing and very high quantities of materials. The best way to assess a country’s sustainability is to analyse whether dematerialisation occurs. Figure 4shows the graphical representation of GDP and DMC growth rates for each country, which allows us to analyse both decoupling and dematerialisation. It can be seen how, once again, the 2008 crisis represents a turning point: in the USA, it is the point from which dematerialisation occurs, while in the United Kingdom, which is at dematerialisation values throughout the series, the decline in the DMC intensifies. It is common for periods of low growth or recession to favour dematerialisation in the most developed countries [ 10 ]. On the other hand, the 2008 crisis meant an increase in the growth rate of China’s DMC, although this was compensated for by the high value of its GDP growth. From the perspective of production, the MFA in these three countries allows us to affirm that it is possible to make economic growth compatible with the reduction of material consumption. While dematerialisation does not occur in the USA until after the 2008 crisis, the United Kingdom maintains a decreasing DMC throughout the series. This situation could fit within the EKC hypothesis [ 5 , 7 , 8 ], so that the United Kingdom would have passed the turning point of its DMC before the period analysed, while for the USA it would correspond to the 2008 Crisis. In China, although there is decoupling, the DMC grows at a high rate, which could be interpreted as the development phase in which both variables are positively correlated. Sustainability 2021,13, 5489 8 of 21 Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 22 growth rate of China’s DMC, although this was compensated for by the high value of its GDP growth. Figure 4. (a) USA decoupling. (b) UK decoupling. (c) China decoupling. Source: own elaboration based on data from Global Material Flows Database [52]. From the perspective of production, the MFA in these three countries allows us to affirm that it is possible to make economic growth compatible with the reduction of material consumption. While dematerialisation does not occur in the USA until after the 2008 crisis, the United Kingdom maintains a decreasing DMC throughout the series. This situation could fit within the EKC hypothesis [5,7,8], so that the United Kingdom would have passed the turning point of its DMC before the period analysed, while for the USA it would correspond to the 2008 Crisis. In China, although there is decoupling, the DMC grows at a high rate, which could be interpreted as the development phase in which both variables are positively correlated. Table 2 shows a summary of the results of the production method through which these conclusions have been obtained. Figure 4. ( a ) USA decoupling. ( b ) UK decoupling. ( c ) China decoupling. Source: own elaboration based on data from Global Material Flows Database [52]. Table 2shows a summary of the results of the production method through which these conclusions have been obtained. Table 2. Summary of production method data, units per capita. Source: own elaboration based on data from Global Material Flows Database [52]. Country Year GDP (USD 2010) DE (Tonnes) DMC (Tonnes) Imports (Tonnes) Exports (Tonnes) Decoupling Ratio United Kingdom 1990 28,764.49 13.49 14.34 2.64 1.80 0.37 2017 43,010.71 5.82 7.85 3.63 1.60 USA 1990 35,599.40 26.38 27.27 2.32 1.43 0.49 2017 53,552.49 20.14 20.26 2.20 2.07 China 1990 717.02 5.65 5.62 0.05 0.08 0.44 2017 7346.84 23.98 25.39 1.70 0.29 3.2. Dematerialisation or Relocation? Decoupling can be understood as a normal consequence of economic operation, since any economic process seeks to maximise output given a limited number of resources. However, dematerialisation implies a reduction in the use of resources, which is not a common occurrence no matter how much efficiency is improved. Efficiency improvements are usually aimed at increasing output, rather than maintaining the same level using fewer resources. In fact, an increase in efficiency in the use of a given resource reduces the cost of Sustainability 2021,13, 5489 9 of 21 the technologies associated with it, leading to a greater use of that resource and, therefore, to an increase in the use of that resource, known as the rebound effect [18,20,21]. In countries where dematerialisation is observed, from the perspective of production, different factors come together, for example: reduced population growth, increased efficiency in the use of resources, a high stock of infrastructures, high population density or specialisation in service activities, known as tertiarization [ 46 , 53 ]. However, the most important factor behind dematerialisation is often the relocation of productive activities to other territories [ 23 , 25 ]. The offshoring processes that richer countries have carried out over the last few decades have caused production chains to be structured on a global scale, taking production centres and, therefore, material consumption away from rich countries [60]. Figures 5and 6show how the global distribution of material consumption varies according to the perspective used. The most obvious variations occur in Western countries, mainly in North America and Europe, which have a much higher Material Footprint than their DMC. This can be seen with a shift towards shades closer to yellow and red. In contrast, in regions such as South America or much of Asia, where countries with high levels of material exports are found, there is a shift towards more greenish colours, because they generally have a lower Material Footprint than their DMC. Table A1 in Appendix A contains data that complement the information in this section and reinforce the conclusions drawn. Table A1 in Appendix Acontains data that complement the information in this section and reinforce the conclusions drawn. It contains data for 165 countries for 2015, including GDP per capita, Domestic Extraction, Physical Trade Balance, Raw Trade Balance, Mate-rial Footprint, Domestic Material Consumption, and the difference between the latter two, providing a complete overview of each country’s situation. Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 22 Figure 5. Domestic Material Consumption tonnes per capita, year 2015. Source: own elaboration based on data from Global Material Flows Database [52] using the Microsoft Excel map creation tool. Figure 6. Material Footprint, tonnes per capita, year 2015. Source: own elaboration based on data from Global Material Flows Database [52] using the Microsoft Excel map creation tool. Figure 5. Domestic Material Consumption tonnes per capita, year 2015. Source: own elaboration based on data from Global Material Flows Database [52] using the Microsoft Excel map creation tool. Sustainability 2021,13, 5489 16 of 21 in general terms, the implications are common to most countries with high external physical dependence. 4.2. Limitations and Future Research Ampliations One of the limitations of this work is the time span, which, due to the limited availability of data, is not long enough to cover all phases of development in each country. In addition, this research does not consider material flows that are not part of any economic process, known as hidden flows [ 15 ], so that part of the environmental impact is excluded from the analysis. It is important to note that some of the data used are estimates, so there is some margin of error. As lines of future expansion, it would be interesting to use econometric techniques to analyse the relationships between variables, as well as to extend the time interval analysed as data availability increases. The selection of countries could also be widened, or the territorial distribution of the selected countries could be deepened. On the other hand, disaggregating material flows by category would broaden the information and improve the quality of the results. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, P.A.-F. and R.M.R.-F.; Methodology, R.M.R.-F.; Software, P.A.-F. and R.M.R.-F.; Validation, P.A.-F. and R.M.R.-F.; Formal Analysis, P.A.-F.; Investigation, P.A.-F.; Resources, P.A.-F. and R.M.R.-F.; Data Curation, P.A.-F.; Writing–Original Draft Preparation, P.A.-F.; Writing–Review & Editing, P.A.-F. and R.M.R.-F.; Visualization, P.A.-F. and R.M.R.-F.; Supervision, P.A.-F. and R.M.R.-F.; Project Administration, P.A.-F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research received no external funding. Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable. Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable. Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are openly available in [52]. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. Appendix A Table A1. Extension of data for the main indicators of both methods, units per capita, year 2015 1 . Source: own elaboration based on data from Global Material Flows Database [52]. Country GDP (USD 2010) DE (Tonnes) MF (Tonnes) DMC (Tonnes) RTB (Tonnes) PTB (Tonnes) MF-DMC Luxembourg 107,638.21 12.39 104.83 28.15 92.44 15.76 76.68 Norway 90,029.36 54.98 37.56 21.15 −17.41 −33.83 16.41 Switzerland 76,553.28 9.77 31.67 13.52 21.90 3.57 18.15 Qatar 67,443.05 109.15 14.82 55.23 −94.33 −55.03 −40.42 Ireland 65,432.73 9.75 21.15 13.94 11.40 4.19 7.21 Denmark 60,402.13 14.79 24.34 16.65 9.54 1.86 7.68 Sweden 56,339.99 20.94 31.78 17.03 10.84 −3.91 14.75 Australia 55,079.89 90.63 42.49 38.38 −48.15 −52.41 4.10 Singapore 54,009.74 5.80 73.28 33.37 67.48 27.55 39.91 United States of America 52,168.13 20.72 32.29 21.14 11.57 0.42 11.14 Netherlands 51,871.58 8.45 26.75 14.30 18.30 5.85 12.45 Canada 50,262.03 37.00 34.89 29.02 −2.11 −7.98 5.86 Austria 47,789.39 13.21 32.39 15.76 19.18 2.55 16.63 Iceland 47,533.70 9.94 34.08 15.20 24.15 5.03 18.89 Japan 47,102.58 4.33 25.02 9.38 20.70 5.05 15.64 Finland 45,647.67 25.88 35.24 24.61 9.36 −1.27 10.63 Belgium 45,507.23 9.71 23.41 15.88 13.70 6.18 7.52 Germany 45,208.06 11.90 22.59 15.02 10.69 3.11 7.57 United Kingdom 42,017.14 6.65 22.71 8.50 16.07 1.85 14.22 France 41,793.54 9.94 21.19 11.83 11.24 1.88 9.36 United Arab Emirates 40,247.75 37.92 48.09 20.71 10.16 −17.22 27.38 Sustainability 2021,13, 5489 17 of 21 Table A1. Cont. Country GDP (USD 2010) DE (Tonnes) MF (Tonnes) DMC (Tonnes) RTB (Tonnes) PTB (Tonnes) MF-DMC New Zealand 36,683.09 23.52 24.55 24.86 1.03 1.34 −0.31 Kuwait 35,969.35 55.97 47.06 29.82 −8.91 −26.15 17.24 Italy 33,961.44 8.32 20.87 10.90 12.55 2.58 9.97 Israel 33,071.41 9.53 23.83 13.30 14.30 3.76 10.54 Brunei Darussalam 32,873.47 45.32 19.55 23.33 −25.78 −21.99 −3.79 Spain 30,549.79 10.00 23.34 12.00 13.34 2.00 11.34 Cyprus 27,897.96 22.66 34.74 24.43 12.08 1.76 10.32 Bahamas 27,583.41 7.99 20.89 3.25 12.90 −8.43 17.65 Malta 26,426.68 9.24 26.71 16.26 17.47 7.02 10.45 South Korea 26,063.71 7.97 27.50 15.90 19.53 7.93 11.60 Slovenia 23,826.13 11.16 23.24 13.77 12.08 2.61 9.47 Greece 22,615.39 10.48 26.18 11.62 15.69 1.14 14.55 Bahrain 22,353.36 26.97 14.68 28.82 −12.29 1.85 −14.15 Portugal 22,018.01 9.66 18.42 11.09 8.76 1.43 7.33 Czech Republic 21,560.83 15.51 22.53 17.12 7.02 1.60 5.41 Saudi Arabia 21,399.11 34.86 12.31 24.08 −22.54 −10.78 −11.77 Slovakia 18,898.18 8.95 34.41 10.91 25.46 1.96 23.50 Estonia 17,633.59 32.44 27.99 32.98 −4.45 0.53 −4.99 Trinidad and Tobago 16,840.12 30.22 5.37 18.92 −24.85 −14.07 −13.55 Oman 16,658.09 38.48 10.17 29.57 −28.31 −8.91 −19.40 Barbados 15,836.38 2.61 11.10 2.76 8.48 0.14 8.33 Lithuania 15,398.86 12.75 34.87 14.80 22.11 2.05 20.06 Hungary 14,850.43 12.73 14.34 16.92 1.61 4.20 −2.58 Chile 14,722.37 41.68 17.07 40.93 −24.61 −0.76 −23.86 Poland 14,610.88 16.64 23.24 17.68 6.60 1.04 5.56 Latvia 14,414.25 16.01 21.70 16.00 5.69 −0.01 5.69 Croatia 14,111.25 9.24 15.30 9.79 6.06 0.56 5.50 Uruguay 13,938.79 37.46 35.78 35.83 −1.68 −1.63 −0.04 Turkey 13,923.68 16.25 15.60 17.77 −0.65 1.52 −2.17 Antigua and Barbuda 13,328.15 2.44 13.63 3.28 11.19 0.84 10.35 Seychelles 13,187.61 2.15 21.14 2.46 19.00 0.31 18.68 Brazil 11,431.15 18.67 16.43 16.45 −2.24 −2.25 −0.02 Russian Federation 11,355.24 21.04 9.54 16.36 −11.50 −4.68 −6.82 Malaysia 10,912.15 18.83 23.83 18.86 5.01 0.01 4.97 Panama 10,765.91 5.14 7.93 7.47 2.79 2.33 0.46 Kazakhstan 10,617.47 35.70 17.78 28.21 −17.91 −7.59 −10.43 Argentina 10,568.16 16.85 14.29 15.71 −2.56 −1.14 −1.42 Mexico 10,042.14 9.79 9.62 9.74 −0.17 −0.04 −0.13 Romania 9660.43 11.60 16.41 11.47 4.80 −0.14 4.94 Gabon 9521.29 12.77 5.07 6.77 −7.70 −6.00 −1.70 Mauritius 9476.67 9.25 20.13 11.65 10.88 2.40 8.48 Costa Rica 9219.39 8.32 8.08 8.48 −0.24 0.16 −0.40 Suriname 8464.76 13.85 14.37 13.81 0.52 −0.04 0.56 Bulgaria 7663.72 18.84 12.11 18.70 −6.73 −0.14 −6.59 Botswana 7613.70 28.25 33.59 29.11 5.33 0.86 4.48 Colombia 7580.28 8.77 10.36 6.67 1.59 −2.10 3.69 South Africa 7556.79 14.28 8.64 11.69 −5.64 −2.59 −3.05 Maldives 7501.55 4.20 16.39 7.49 12.19 3.28 8.90 Montenegro 7286.46 11.18 24.92 12.78 13.73 1.59 12.14 Turkmenistan 6693.93 24.08 21.42 16.64 −2.66 −7.44 4.78 Dominican Republic 6661.87 5.21 6.55 5.77 1.33 0.56 0.77 Cuba 6522.74 7.36 8.09 8.16 0.72 0.80 −0.07 China 6500.42 22.42 19.94 23.65 −2.47 1.23 −3.70 Lebanon 6487.90 7.57 15.35 10.05 7.78 2.48 5.30 Belarus 6384.82 16.13 0.40 16.60 −15.73 0.47 −16.19 Namibia 6274.75 10.85 8.16 11.02 −2.69 0.17 −2.86 Serbia 6157.25 14.03 19.72 14.27 5.69 0.23 5.46 Peru 6114.23 15.55 9.38 15.14 −6.17 −0.44 −5.76 Iran 6070.19 15.34 13.83 14.44 −1.51 −0.91 −0.61 Azerbaijan 6063.72 12.53 5.85 8.42 −6.68 −4.10 −2.58 Libya 5899.90 11.40 3.80 10.81 −7.60 −0.59 −7.01 Thailand 5741.35 11.78 14.43 12.30 2.64 0.52 2.12 Bosnia and Herzegovina 5352.72 11.36 8.79 11.94 −2.57 0.59 −3.15 Sustainability 2021,13, 5489 18 of 21 Table A1. Cont. Country GDP (USD 2010) DE (Tonnes) MF (Tonnes) DMC (Tonnes) RTB (Tonnes) PTB (Tonnes) MF-DMC Ecuador 5330.54 10.14 10.70 9.09 0.56 −1.05 1.61 Iraq 5295.99 9.09 2.75 6.25 −6.34 −2.84 −3.50 Guyana 5257.46 25.25 116.73 24.74 91.49 −0.51 92.00 Macedonia 5105.40 12.50 13.28 13.94 0.77 1.44 −0.66 Paraguay 4944.19 13.36 14.64 12.15 1.28 −1.22 2.49 Algeria 4775.87 9.91 3.04 8.72 −6.87 −1.19 −5.68 Jamaica 4722.05 8.26 8.26 7.13 0.00 −1.14 1.14 Albania 4524.37 9.41 10.86 9.70 1.45 0.22 1.16 Fiji Islands 4352.47 6.28 7.21 6.86 0.93 0.58 0.35 Tunisia 4308.42 8.52 6.21 9.20 −2.31 0.68 −2.99 Belize 4300.56 12.03 7.95 11.98 −4.09 −0.05 −4.03 Georgia 4185.81 4.86 8.47 6.25 3.61 1.39 2.22 Armenia 3923.72 9.09 7.37 9.99 −1.72 0.90 −2.62 Mongolia 3895.41 40.19 13.29 33.49 −26.90 −6.70 −20.21 Indonesia 3824.27 8.61 6.02 7.19 −2.59 −1.42 −1.17 Angola 3748.32 8.52 3.75 5.42 −4.77 −3.11 −1.67 Sri Lanka 3647.39 4.42 3.93 5.36 −0.49 0.94 −1.43 Samoa 3558.12 4.68 7.61 5.13 2.93 0.45 2.48 Cape Verde 3414.56 5.84 8.50 6.74 2.67 0.91 1.76 Jordan 3350.39 8.59 8.18 9.52 −0.40 0.93 −1.34 El Salvador 3314.70 4.81 6.31 5.43 1.50 0.61 0.88 Morocco 3222.05 7.04 3.83 7.66 −3.21 0.62 −3.84 Guatemala 3210.87 6.42 3.82 6.54 −2.60 0.11 −2.72 Rep Congo 3097.28 6.10 2.39 3.81 −3.71 −2.29 −1.42 Moldova 2953.72 7.61 3.54 8.26 −4.07 0.65 −4.72 Ukraine 2828.89 13.97 11.35 11.80 −2.62 −2.16 −0.46 Vanuatu 2781.79 6.01 7.47 6.04 1.46 0.03 1.43 Bhutan 2780.82 12.86 10.22 10.25 −2.64 −2.63 −0.03 Philippines 2735.19 4.14 4.37 3.97 0.23 −0.19 0.39 Egypt 2704.92 7.03 4.88 7.61 −2.15 0.58 −2.72 Nigeria 2549.72 4.06 2.73 3.49 −1.34 −0.57 −0.76 Bolivia 2361.06 13.94 5.39 12.56 −8.55 −1.38 −7.17 Papua New Guinea 2336.81 9.54 2.73 10.95 −6.81 1.41 −8.22 Uzbekistan 2138.57 9.51 6.14 9.28 −3.37 −0.23 −3.14 Honduras 2067.29 5.56 4.37 5.69 −1.19 0.05 −1.32 Nicaragua 1836.01 6.13 4.20 6.47 −1.93 0.34 −2.27 Sudan 1825.72 4.45 4.36 4.63 −0.09 0.19 −0.27 India 1751.66 5.05 4.45 5.34 −0.59 0.29 −0.88 Mauritania 1732.59 10.06 2.59 7.52 −7.47 −2.54 −4.93 Vietnam 1667.17 13.52 11.79 13.59 −1.73 0.08 −1.80 Zambia 1641.01 8.04 3.39 8.07 −4.65 0.03 −4.68 Ghana 1625.91 6.58 3.56 6.84 −3.02 0.26 −3.28 Laos 1538.85 10.76 6.60 10.61 −4.16 −0.16 −4.00 Cote d’Ivoire 1463.71 2.94 0.98 3.08 −1.96 0.14 −2.09 Cameroon 1441.78 3.93 1.87 4.03 −2.05 0.11 −2.16 Senegal 1384.52 3.04 2.42 3.21 −0.62 0.17 −0.79 Lesotho 1363.93 11.61 11.48 11.82 −0.14 0.21 −0.34 Myanmar 1335.20 3.43 1.35 3.30 −2.08 −0.13 −1.95 Haiti 1260.60 1.39 1.34 1.59 −0.05 0.20 −0.25 Zimbabwe 1234.10 3.47 3.42 3.59 −0.05 0.12 −0.17 Sao Tome and Principe 1232.17 3.01 6.04 3.37 3.03 0.35 2.67 Benin 1129.00 4.62 4.28 5.01 −0.34 0.38 −0.73 Kenya 1093.13 3.05 3.07 3.28 0.02 0.22 −0.20 Pakistan 1081.29 4.19 3.16 4.43 −1.03 0.24 −1.27 Cambodia 1024.62 4.33 3.38 4.88 −0.95 0.55 −1.50 Kyrgyzstan 1021.16 7.33 8.52 8.20 1.19 0.88 0.31 Bangladesh 1002.39 2.35 2.28 2.58 −0.06 0.23 −0.29 Chad 956.66 2.57 1.59 2.59 −0.98 0.02 −1.00 Tajikistan 936.00 3.04 3.55 3.37 0.52 0.34 0.18 Uganda 903.85 2.98 2.63 3.03 −0.35 0.05 −0.40 Tanzania 872.00 3.22 1.44 3.35 −1.78 0.13 −1.91 Yemen 785.34 1.92 1.09 2.23 −0.83 0.31 −1.14 Rwanda 764.62 2.80 3.04 2.87 0.25 0.07 0.18 Gambia 754.99 2.24 2.29 2.47 0.05 0.23 −0.18 Guinea 750.40 5.05 2.21 3.64 −2.84 −1.41 −1.43 Nepal 732.00 3.55 2.70 3.79 −0.85 0.25 −1.09 South Sudan 730.93 1.38 1.26 0.78 −0.12 −0.84 0.48 Sustainability 2021,13, 5489 19 of 21 Table A1. Cont. Country GDP (USD 2010) DE (Tonnes) MF (Tonnes) DMC (Tonnes) RTB (Tonnes) PTB (Tonnes) MF-DMC Mali 729.63 5.56 4.55 5.69 −1.01 0.12 −1.13 Burkina Faso 726.71 4.16 3.82 4.27 −0.33 0.11 −0.44 Togo 630.94 4.22 2.57 4.25 −1.64 0.00 −1.68 Mozambique 580.05 2.49 1.93 2.41 −0.56 −3.96 −0.47 Afghanistan 574.18 1.86 1.28 2.00 −0.58 0.15 −0.72 Liberia 571.45 3.22 1.69 3.29 −1.53 0.07 −1.60 Niger 520.76 3.43 3.26 3.49 −0.16 0.06 −0.22 Malawi 507.55 3.34 1.22 3.36 −2.12 0.02 −2.14 Ethiopia 482.64 2.94 0.70 3.02 −2.24 0.08 −2.32 Madagascar 469.94 2.28 0.83 2.40 −1.46 0.12 −1.58 Sierra Leone 441.14 6.53 5.93 6.41 −0.59 −0.38 −0.47 DR Congo 411.02 2.30 2.03 2.33 −0.28 0.03 −0.30 Central African Republic 346.69 3.08 2.33 3.10 −0.75 0.02 −0.77 Burundi 228.43 1.62 1.50 1.66 −0.13 0.04 −0.16 1Data from 2015 is used because it is the most recent year for which data is available for most countries. References 1. Naredo, J.M. Economía y Sostenibilidad. La Economía Ecológica En Perspectiva. POLIS Rev. Latinoam. 2001,1, 27. 2. Meadows, D.H.; Meadows, D.L.; Randers, J.; Behrens, W.W., III. The Limits to Growth. A Report for The Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind; Universe Books: New York, NY, USA, 1972. 3. United Nations. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 1987. 4. Shafik, N.; Bandyopadhyay, S. Ecomomic Growth and Enivronmental Quality, Time Series Anda Cross-Country Evidence; World Development Report; World Bank Group: Washington, DC, USA, 1992. 5. Panayotou, T. Environmental Degradation at Different Stages of Economic Development. In Beyond Rio; Ahmed, I., Doeleman, J.A., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 1995; pp. 13–36. 6. Castells, M. La Era de La Información; Alianza: Madriz, Nicaragua, 1997. 7. Aruga, K. Investigating the Energy-Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis for the Asia-Pacific Region. Sustainability 2019 ,11, 2395. [CrossRef] 8. Maneejuk, N.; Ratchakom, S.; Maneejuk, P.; Yamaka, W. Does the Environmental Kuznets Curve Exist? An International Study. Sustainability 2020,12, 9117. [CrossRef] 9. Scheel, C.; Aguiñaga, E.; Bello, B. Decoupling Economic Development from the Consumption of Finite Resources Using Circular Economy. A Model for Developing Countries. Sustainability 2020,12, 1291. [CrossRef] 10. Shao, Q.; Schaffartzik, A.; Mayer, A.; Krausmann, F. The High ‘Price’ of Dematerialization: A Dynamic Panel Data Analysis of Material Use and Economic Recession. J. Clean. Prod. 2017,167, 120–132. [CrossRef] 11. Bampatsou, C.; Halkos, G.; Dimou, A. Determining Economic Productivity under Environmental and Resource Pressures: An Empirical Application. J. Econ. Struct. 2017,6, 12. [CrossRef] 12. Cohen, G.; Jalles, J.T.; Loungani, P.; Marto, R. The Long-Run Decoupling of Emissions and Output: Evidence from the Largest Emitters. Energy Policy 2018,118, 58–68. [CrossRef] 13. Steinberger, J.K.; Krausmann, F.; Getzner, M.; Schandl, H.; West, J. Development and Dematerialization: An International Study. PLoS ONE 2013,8, e70385. [CrossRef] 14. Martínez-Alier, J.; Pascual, U.; Vivien, F.-D.; Zaccai, E. Sustainable De-Growth: Mapping the Context, Criticisms and Future Prospects of an Emergent Paradigm. Ecol. Econ. 2010,69, 1741–1747. [CrossRef] 15. Adriaanse, A. Resource Flows: The Material Basis of Industrial Economies; World Resources Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 1997. 16. Bithas, K.; Kalimeris, P. Unmasking Decoupling: Redefining the Resource Intensity of the Economy. Sci. Total Environ. 2018 , 619–620, 338–351. [CrossRef] 17. Steinberger, J.K.; Krausmann, F. Material and Energy Productivity. Policy Anal. 2011,45, 1169–1176. [CrossRef] 18. Schandl, H.; Fischer-Kowalski, M.; West, J.; Giljum, S.; Dittrich, M.; Eisenmenger, N.; Geschke, A.; Lieber, M.; Wieland, H.; Schaffartzik, A.; et al. Global Material Flows and Resource Productivity: Forty Years of Evidence: Global Material Flows and Resource Productivity. J. Ind. Ecol. 2018,22, 827–838. [CrossRef] 19. Wiedmann, T.O.; Schandl, H.; Lenzen, M.; Moran, D.; Suh, S.; West, J.; Kanemoto, K. The Material Footprint of Nations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015,112, 6271–6276. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 20. Carpintero, Ó. Los costes ambientales del sector servicios y la nueva economía: Entre la desmaterialización y el efecto rebote. Econ. Ind. 2003,352, 59–76. 21. Carpintero, Ó. Pautas de consumo, desmaterialización y ‘nueva economía’: Entre la realidad y el deseo. In Necesidades, Consumo y Sostenibilidad; Colección Urbanitats; CCCB/Bakeaz: Barcelona, Spain, 2003. Sustainability 2021,13, 5489 20 of 21 22. Pothen, F.; Schymura, M. Bigger Cakes with Fewer Ingredients? A Comparison of Material Use of the World Economy. Ecol. Econ. 2015,109, 109–121. [CrossRef] 23. Krausmann, F.; Schandl, H.; Eisenmenger, N.; Giljum, S.; Jackson, T. Material Flow Accounting: Measuring Global Material Use for Sustainable Development. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2017,42, 647–675. [CrossRef] 24. Arto, I.; Roca, J.; Serrano, M. Emisiones territoriales y fuga de emisiones. Análisis del caso español. Rev. Iberoam. Econ. Ecol. 2012 , 18, 73–87. 25. Dittrich, M.; Giljum, S.; Lutter, S.; Polzin, C. Green Economies around the World? Implications of Resource Use for Development and the Environment; Sustainable Europe Research Institute (SERI): Vienna, Austria, 2012. 26. Knight, K.W.; Schor, J.B. Economic Growth and Climate Change: A Cross-National Analysis of Territorial and Consumption-Based Carbon Emissions in High-Income Countries. Sustainability 2014,6, 3722–3731. [CrossRef] 27. Eisenmenger, N.; Giljum, S.; Lutter, S.; Marques, A.; Theurl, M.; Pereira, H.; Tukker, A. Towards a Conceptual Framework for Social-Ecological Systems Integrating Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services with Resource Efficiency Indicators. Sustainability 2016,8, 201. [CrossRef] 28. Ayres, R.U.; Kneese, A.V. Production, Consumption, and Externalities. Am. Econ. Rev. 1969,59, 282–297. 29. Ayres, R.U.; Ayres, L. Accounting for Resources: Economy-Wide Applications of Mass-Balance Principles to Materials and Waste; Edward Elgar: Camberley, UK, 1998. 30. Daniels, P.L.; Moore, S. Approaches for Quantifying the Metabolism of Physical Economies: Part I: Methodological Overview. J. Ind. Ecol. 2001,5, 69–93. [CrossRef] 31. Daniels, P.L. Approaches for Quantifying the Metabolism of Physical Economies: A Comparative Survey: Part II: Review of Individual Approaches. J. Ind. Ecol. 2002,6, 65–88. [CrossRef] 32. Steurer, A.; Schutz, H. Economy-Wide Material Flow Accounts and Derived Indicators: A Methodological Guide; Eurostat, Ed.; Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg, 2001. 33. Fischer-Kowalski, M.; Krausmann, F.; Giljum, S.; Lutter, S.; Mayer, A.; Bringezu, S.; Moriguchi, Y.; Schütz, H.; Schandl, H.; Weisz, H. Methodology and Indicators of Economy-Wide Material Flow Accounting. J. Ind. Ecol. 2011,15, 855–876. [CrossRef] 34. EUROSTAT. Economy-Wide Material Flow Accounts Handbook: 2018 Edition; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2018. 35. Fischer-Kowalski, M.; Haberl, H. Sustainable Development: Socio-economic Metabolism and Colonization of Nature. Int. Soc. Sci. J. 1998,50, 573–587. [CrossRef] 36. Ayres, R.U.; Simonis, U.E. Industrial Metabolism: Restructuring for Sustainable Development; United Nations University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1994. 37. Fischer-Kowalski, M.; Weisz, H. Society as Hybrid between Material and Symbolic Realms: Toward a Theoretical Framework of Society-Nature Interaction. Adv. Hum. Ecol. 1999,8, 215–251. 38. Georgescu-Roegen, N. La Ley de Entropía y El Proceso Económico; Fundación Argentaria: Madrid, Spain, 1996. 39. Piñero, P.; Bruckner, M.; Wieland, H.; Pongrácz, E.; Giljum, S. The Raw Material Basis of Global Value Chains: Allocating Environmental Responsibility Based on Value Generation. Econ. Syst. Res. 2019,31, 206–227. [CrossRef] 40. Schandl, H.; Fischer-Kowalski, M.; West, J.; Giljum, S.; Dittrich, M.; Eisenmenger, N.; Geschke, A.; Lieber, M.; Wieland, H.; Schaffartzik, A.; et al. Global Material Flows and Resource Productivity, Assessment Study for the UNEP International Resource Panel; United Nations Environment Programme: Paris, France, 2016. 41. Schaffartzik, A.; Wiedenhofer, D.; Eisenmenger, N. Raw Material Equivalents: The Challenges of Accounting for Sustainability in a Globalized World. Sustainability 2015,7, 5345–5370. [CrossRef] 42. Carpintero, Ó.El Metabolismo Económico Regional Español: Glosario de Términos; FUHEM Ecosocial: Madrid, Spain, 2015. 43. Anke Schaffartzik; Melanie Pichler Extractive Economies in Material and Political Terms: Broadening the Analytical Scope. Sustainability 2017,9, 1047. [CrossRef] 44. Eisenmenger, N.; Fischer-Kowalski, M.; Weisz, H. Indicators of natural resource use and consumption. In Sustainability Indicators; SCOPE: Washington, DC, USA, 2007; pp. 193–211. 45. UNEP. Decoupling Natural Resource Use and Environmental Impacts from Economic Growth; UNEP: Nairobi, Kenya, 2011. 46. Fischer-Kowalski, M.; Haberl, H. Social metabolism: A metric for biophysical growth and degrowth. In Handbook of Ecological Economics; Edward Elgard: Cheltenham, UK, 2015; pp. 100–138. 47. Ruffing, K. Indicators to measure decoupling of environmental pressure from economic growth. In Sustainability Indicators: A Scientific Assessment; SCOPE: Washington, DC, USA, 2007; pp. 221–223. 48. Giljum, S.; Hak, T.; Hinterberger, F.; Kovanda, J. Environmental Governance in the European Union: Strategies and Instruments for Absolute Decoupling. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. 2005,8, 31. [CrossRef] 49. Martínez-Alier, J. Los Conflictos Ecológico-Distributivos y Los Indicadores de Sustentabilidad. Rev. Iberoam. Econ. Ecol. 2004 ,1, 21–30. 50. UNEP. Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Consumption and Production. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2010,11. [CrossRef] 51. Dittrich, M.; Bringezu, S.; Schütz, H. The Physical Dimension of International Trade, Part 2: Indirect Global Resource Flows between 1962 and 2005. Ecol. Econ. 2012,79, 32–43. [CrossRef] 52. United Nations Environment Programme International Resource Panel Global Material Flows Database. Available online: https://www.resourcepanel.org/global-material-flows-database (accessed on 1 March 2021). Sustainability 2021,13, 5489 21 of 21 53. Weisz, H.; Krausmann, F.; Amann, C.; Eisenmenger, N.; Erb, K.-H.; Hubacek, K.; Fischer-Kowalski, M. The Physical Economy of the European Union: Cross-Country Comparison and Determinants of Material Consumption. Ecol. Econ. 2006 ,58, 676–698. [CrossRef] 54. Fernández-Herrero, L.; Duro, J.A. What Causes Inequality in Material Productivity between Countries? Ecol. Econ. 2019 ,162, 1–16. [CrossRef] 55. Palazuelos, E.; Machín, A. Ruidos y Silencios de La Política Energética de Estados Unidos. Econ. UNAM 2008,14, 7–36. 56. Bradshaw, C.J.A.; Giam, X.; Sodhi, N.S. Evaluating the Relative Environmental Impact of Countries. PLoS ONE 2010 ,5, e10440. [CrossRef] 57. Palazuelos, E.; García, C. La Transición Energética en China. Rev. Econ. Mund. 2008,20, 165–196. 58. Pérez Lagüela, E. El metabolismo de la economía china. Una visión del desarrollo desde la Economía ecológica. Rev. Econ. Mund. 2017. [CrossRef] 59. Levy, D. Offshoring in the New Global Political Economy. J. Manag. Stud. 2005, 685–693. [CrossRef] 60. Santarcángelo, J.; Schteingart, D.; Porta, F. Cadenas Globales de Valor: Una mirada crítica a una nueva forma de pensar el desarrollo. Cuad. Econ. Crítica 2017,4, 99–129. 61. Álvarez, N.; Medialdea, B. Revista de Economía Mundial; Universidad Huelva: Huelva, Spain, 2010; pp. 165–191. 62. Palomo Garrido, A. Desarrollo y consecuencias de la globalización financiera. Nómadas Rev. Crítica Cienc. Soc. Juríd. 2013 ,35, 353–373. [CrossRef] 63. Carpintero, Ó.; Naredo, J.M. Sobre Financiarización y Neoextractivismo. Papeles Relac. Ecosociales 2018,143, 97–108. 64. Salvador, A.I. El proceso de apertura de la economía china a la inversión extranjera. Rev. Econ. Mund. 2012,30, 209–231. 65. Salvador, A.I. El proceso de reforma económica de China y su adhesión a la OMC. Pecvnia Rev. Fac. Cienc. Económicas Empres. Univ. 2008,7, 257–284. [CrossRef] 66. Bustelo, P.; Fernández Lommen, Y. Gradualismo y factores estructurales en la reforma económica china (1978–1995). Doc. Trab. Fac. Cienc. Económicas Empres. 1996,11, 1–28. 67. Claro, S. 25 años de reformas económicas en China: 1978–2003. Cuad. Inf. Econ. 2003,186, 74–81. 68. Bustelo, P. China 2006–2010: ¿Hacia una Nueva Pauta de Desarrollo? Real Instituto Elcano de Estudios Internacionales y Estratégicos: Madrid, Spain, 2005. 69. Lommen, Y.F. El futuro incierto de China. Retos del duodécimo Plan Quinquenal. Estud. Política Exter. 2011,56, 46–54. 70. Pérez, Á.P. Boletín del Instituto Español de Estudios Estratégicos; Publicaciones Defensa: Madrid, Spain, 2016; pp. 709–724. 71. Bustillo, I.; Artecona, R.; Makhoul, I.; Perrotti, D. Energía y Políticas Públicas en Estados Unidos. Una Relación Virtuosa Para El Desarrollo de Fuentes No Convencionales; CEPAL: Santiago, Chile, 2015. 72. Hudson, R.; Sadler, D. State Policies and the Changing Geography of the Coal Industry in the United Kingdom in the 1980s and 1990s. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 1990,15, 435–454. [CrossRef] 73. Xun, S. Minerals Yearbook: The Mineral Industry of China; USGS: Washington, DC, USA, 2018. 74. Bruckner, M.; Giljum, S.; Lutz, C.; Wiebe, K.S. Materials Embodied in International Trade—Global Material Extraction and Consumption between 1995 and 2005. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2012,22, 568–576. [CrossRef] 75. Piñero, P.; Pérez-Neira, D.; Infante-Amate, J.; Chas-Amil, M.L.; Doldán-García, X.R. Unequal Raw Material Exchange between and within Countries: Galicia (NW Spain) as a Core-Periphery Economy. Ecol. Econ. 2020,172, 106621. [CrossRef] 76. Muñoz, P.; Giljum, S.; Roca, J. The Raw Material Equivalents of International Trade. J. Ind. Ecol. 2009,13, 881–897. [CrossRef] 77. Chen, X.; Mao, J.; Tian, H. Analysis of China’s Iron Trade Flow: Quantity, Value and Regional Pattern. Sustainability 2020 ,12, 10427. [CrossRef] 78. Huang, J. The Prospects for China’s Food Security and Imports: Will China Starve the World via Imports? J. Integr. Agric. 2017 , 16, 2933–2944. [CrossRef]