Article by Igor Makarov and Elizaveta Smolovik on Assessing Countries’ Readiness for the Energy Transition Published in Energy Research & Social Science
In the article entitled Winners and losers from the world going green: Index of country-level readiness to energy transition, the authors present an index of countries’ readiness for the energy transition and use it to rank 133 countries worldwide. The proposed index makes it possible to assess countries’ structural advantages and constraints in the shift towards a low-carbon economy.
The ranking is based on two key groups of indicators. The first reflects assets exposed to the energy transition, both on the positive side — such as the potential for renewable energy development or the availability of critical metals and minerals — and on the negative side, including dependence on fossil fuels and the prevalence of carbon-intensive industries. The second group of indicators characterises countries’ adaptive capacity and is determined by their level of economic development, technological capabilities and human capital.
The results show that developed countries are the main beneficiaries of the energy transition and occupy the top positions in the ranking, while the least developed countries are concentrated at the lower end. China stands out in particular: it ranks ninth overall, while emerging as the absolute leader in the first group of indicators related to energy transition assets. Russia ranks 67th.
The authors also compare the ranking with countries' greenhouse gas emission reduction targets set out in their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). The analysis reveals a clear correlation: countries with higher levels of readiness for the energy transition tend to declare more ambitious decarbonisation targets, whereas those with lower rankings generally demonstrate more limited climate ambition.
As the authors note, the findings have important practical implications. On the one hand, the ranking may serve as a signal for countries with low readiness levels of the need to adapt to ongoing global structural changes. On the other hand, the identified asymmetries underline the importance of a differentiated international approach: climate targets cannot be uniform for countries with different levels of readiness for the energy transition, and those in less favourable positions require additional financial and technological support.
Further details on the methodology and findings are available in the full text of the article.