Abstract
The analytical research question of this contribution is twofold: (1) to compare the quality of democracy of the USA internationally and to “assess” (evaluate) American democracy, whereas assessing (evaluation) in this scenario refers to putting results of the comparative rating in the form of propositions (theses) for further discussions; (2) this same frame of reference is also being used to compare the quality of democracy in Austria internationally, and to propose more specifically a whole set of reform measures for further improvement of the quality of Austrian democracy in the nearer future. In theoretical and conceptual terms, we refer to a Quadruple-Dimensional structure, also a Quadruple Helix structure (a “Model of Quadruple Helix Structures”) of the four basic dimensions of freedom, equality, control, and sustainable development, for explaining and comparing democracy and quality of democracy. Put in summary, we may conclude: the comparative strengths of the quality of democracy in the USA focus on the dimension of freedom and on the dimension of sustainable development. Further containment of corruption marks potentially a sensitive area and issue for the USA. The comparative weakness of the quality of American democracy lies in the dimension of equality, most importantly income equality. Income inequality defines and represents a major challenge and concern for democracy in the USA. In the “epilogue” to our analysis, we engage in reflecting on Cyberdemocracy and possible ramifications for Knowledge Democracy. We present a few propositions for further discussion and discourse.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
In the Epilogue, we also present some ideas and tentative propositions on the relationship of quality of democracy with (or to) cyberdemocracy. This should help extending the perspective of democracy particularly in context of knowledge democracy.
- 2.
This also explains the empirical focus of the used literature on Austria, as is being documented in the reference list at the end. Regarding the USA, we do not engage in developing recommendations for reform measures in the context of the analysis presented here.
- 3.
Most, however not all, member countries of the EU are also member countries to the OECD.
- 4.
Quotes from original sources in German were translated into English by the authors of this analysis (DC and EC).
- 5.
These dimensions we want to interpret as “Basic Dimensions” of democracy and of the quality of democracy.
- 6.
- 7.
See Schmitter (2004).
- 8.
According to Freedom House (2011b), in the year 1980 no less than 42.5 % of the world population lived in “not free” political contexts. By 2010, this share dropped to 35.4 %.
- 9.
For a comprehensive Web site address for all Human Development Reports that is publicly accessible for free downloads, see: http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2011/.
- 10.
For a systematic attempt of empirical assessment on possible linkages between democracy and development, see Przeworski et al. (2003).
- 11.
It cannot be convincingly argued that there are no data or indicators for a comparative measurement of democracy (at least in the recent years). Of course there can and should be discussions about the quality of these data and their cross-references to theory of democracy.
- 12.
- 13.
- 14.
- 15.
- 16.
The original quote in German is: “Das Democracy Barometer geht davon aus, dass Demokratie durch die drei Prinzipien Freiheit, Kontrolle und Gleichheit sichergestellt wird.” See: http://www.democracybarometer.org/concept_de.html.
- 17.
See: http://www.idea.int/.
- 18.
For an overview see: http://www.idea.int/sod/worldwide/reports.cfm.
- 19.
This book already can be downloaded for free as a whole and complete PDF from the Web. Visit the following links at: http://www.oegpw.at/sek_agora/publikationen.htm and http://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/View/?resid=12473.
- 20.
“Grundrechte” here may be interpreted as human rights as they are being proposed by Guillermo O’Donnell (2004a, pp. 12, 47).
- 21.
In reference to the already mentioned basic dimensions of democracy and the quality of democracy, the power-balancing structures (“Macht-ausbalancierenden Strukturen” or “Macht-ausgleichenden Strukturen”) may be aligned to the dimension of control (see Lauth 2004, pp. 77–96).
- 22.
- 23.
For the process of re-scaling the freedom of press and the Gini coefficient we therefore had to shift reversely the value direction of the primary data, to make values (data) compatible with the other indicators.
- 24.
- 25.
- 26.
See also: http://www.democracyranking.org/en/.
- 27.
Interestingly, with regard to political rights and civil liberties, the USA ranks behind Austria.
- 28.
Levels of corruption are being perceived to be higher in the USA than in Austria.
- 29.
In the Democracy Ranking 2011, Austrian democracy scores higher than the USA.
- 30.
On migrant integration policy, Austria scores dramatically lower than the USA
- 31.
Here are behind Austria only Bulgaria, Lithuania, Japan, Malta, the Slovak Republic, Cyprus, and Latvia.
- 32.
Here, only Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia perform poorer than Austria.
- 33.
“The Nordic democracies (and Switzerland) demonstrate in empirical terms and in practice, which degrees and levels of a quality of democracy already can be achieved at the beginning of the twenty-first century” (Campbell 2011, p. 6).
- 34.
Here we can quote from an original source: “Bedenklich für Demokratiequalität ist, wenn ein bedeutender Anteil der Wohnbevölkerung nicht im Besitz der Staatsbürgerschaft ist beziehungsweise sich dieser Anteil sogar vergrößert: Denn das könnte dazu führen, dass manche Parteien, die an Wahlstimmenmaximierung interessiert sind, den StaatsbürgerInnen ‘auf Kosten’ der Nicht-StaatsbürgerInnen Wahlversprechen geben. …Je größer der Anteil der Nicht-StaatsbürgerInnen, desto höher fällt das populistische Potenzial für den Parteienwettbewerb aus. Soll gegen Populismus ein effektiver Riegel vorgeschoben werden, müsste der Anteil der Nicht-StaatsbürgerInnen an der Wohnbevölkerung möglichst verringert werden” (Campbell 2002, pp. 30–31).
- 35.
- 36.
Should Austrian politics continue the blocking of an introduction of a jus soli component into its citizenship law during the course of the coming years, then it cannot completely be ruled out that the pure jus sanguinis design will finally be challenged legally at a “constitutional court” (nationally, supranationally, or even internationally).
- 37.
On the financing of politics and political parties in Austria see, for example: Sickinger (2009).
- 38.
For an analysis of the Austrian federal governments in these years, see: Wineroither (2009).
- 39.
For a possible reform of the electoral law, see Klaus Poier (2001) and his considerations in favor of a “minority-friendly majority representation” (“minderheitenfreundliches Mehrheitswahlrecht”).
- 40.
Attempts of the Austrian political science community, to convince Austrian politics and Austrian politicians to support such a democratic audit of Austria, were so far not successful.
- 41.
For the interesting example of a democratic audit in Costa Rica, see Cullell (2004).
- 42.
A related question here is: Is it proper for democratic governments to “spy” against each other?
References
Barth TD (2010) Konzeption, Messung und Rating der Demokratiequalität. Brasilien, Südafrika, Australien und die Russische Föderation 1997–2006. VDM Verlag Dr. Müller, Saarbrücken
Barth TD (2011) Die 20 besten Demokratien der Welt. Freiheit – Gleichheit – Demokratiequalität auf einen Blick. Books on Demand, Norderstedt
Beck E, Robert A, Schaller C (2003) Zur Qualität der britischen und österreichischen Demokratie. Böhlau, Vienna
Beetham D (1994) Key principles and indices for a democratic audit, 25–43. In: Beetham D (ed) Defining and measuring democracy. Sage, London
Beetham D (2004) Freedom as the foundation. J Democr 15(4):61–75
Beetham D, Byrne I, Ngan P, Weir S (2002) Democracy under blair. A democratic audit of the United Kingdom. Politico’s Publishing, London
Bühlmann M, Merkel W, Müller L, Weßels B (2011) The democracy barometer: a new instrument to measure the quality of democracy and its potential for comparative research. European Political Science. doi:10.1057/eps.2011.46 (http://www.palgrave-journals.com/eps/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/eps201146a.html)
Campbell DFJ (2002) Zur Demokratiequalität von politischem Wechsel, Wettbewerb und politischem System in Österreich, 19–46. In: Campbell DFJ, Schaller C (eds) Demokratiequalität in Österreich. Leske + Budrich, Opladen, http://www.oegpw.at/sek_agora/publikationen.htm and http://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/View/?resid=12473
Campbell DFJ (2007) Wie links oder wie rechts sind Österreichs Länder Eine komparative Langzeitanalyse des parlamentarischen Mehrebenensystems Österreichs (1945–2007). SWS-Rundschau 47(4):381–404, http://www.sws-rundschau.at/archiv/SWS_2007_4_campbell.pdf and http://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/View/?resid=12472&lang=de
Campbell DFJ (2008) The basic concept for the democracy ranking of the quality of democracy. Democracy Ranking, Vienna, http://www.democracyranking.org/downloads/basic_concept_democracy_ranking_2008_A4.pdf
Campbell DFJ (2011) Key findings (summary abstract) of the democracy ranking 2011 and of the democracy improvement ranking 2011. Democracy Ranking, Vienna, http://www.democracyranking.org/downloads/Key-findings_Democracy-Ranking_2011_en-A4.pdf
Campbell DFJ (2012) Die österreichische Demokratiequalität in Perspektive [The quality of democracy in austria in perspective]. In: Helms L, Wineroither DM (eds) Die österreichische Demokratie im Vergleich [Austrian democracy in comparison]. Baden-Baden, Nomos, pp 293–315
Campbell DFJ, Liebhart K, Martinsen R, Schaller C, Schedler A (eds) (1996) Die Qualität der österreichischen Demokratie. Versuche einer Annäherung. Manz, Vienna
Campbell DFJ, Schaller C (eds) (2002) Demokratiequalität in Österreich. Zustand und Entwicklungsperspektiven. Leske + Budrich, Opladen, http://www.oegpw.at/sek_agora/publikationen.htm und http://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/View/?resid=12473
Campbell DFJ, Sükösd M (eds) (2002) Feasibility study for a quality ranking of democracies. Global Democracy Award, Vienna, http://www.democracyranking.org/downloads/feasibility_study-a4-e-01.pdf
Campbell DFJ, Barth TD (2009) Wie können Demokratie und Demokratiequalität gemessen werden? Modelle, Demokratie-Indices und Länderbeispiele im globalen Vergleich. SWS-Rundschau 49(2):208–233, http://www.sws-rundschau.at/archiv/SWS_2009_2_Campbell.pdf and http://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/View/?resid=12471
Campbell DFJ, Carayannis EG (2013a) Quality of democracy and innovation, 1527–1534. In: Carayannis EG, Dubina IN, Seel N, Campbell DFJ, Uzunidis D (eds) Encyclopedia of creativity, invention, innovation and entrepreneurship. Springer, New York, NY, http://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-1-4614-3858-8_509#
Campbell DFJ, Carayannis EG (2013b) Epistemic governance in higher education. Quality enhancement of universities for development (SpringerBriefs in Business). Springer, New York, NY, http://www.springer.com/business+%26+management/organization/book/978-1-4614-4417-6
Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ (2009) “Mode 3” and “Quadruple Helix”: toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. Int J Technol Manage 46(3/4):201–234, http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=27&year=2009&vol=46&issue=3/4 and http://www.inderscience.com/search/index.php?action=record&rec_id=23374&prevQuery=&ps=10&m=or
Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ (2010) Triple helix, quadruple helix and quintuple helix and how do knowledge, innovation and the environment relate to each other. A proposed framework for a trans-disciplinary analysis of sustainable development and social ecology. Int J Soc Ecol Sustain Dev 1(1):41–69, http://www.igi-global.com/bookstore/article.aspx?titleid=41959
Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ (2011) Open innovation diplomacy and a 21st century fractal research, education and innovation (FREIE) ecosystem: building on the quadruple and quintuple helix innovation concepts and the “Mode 3” knowledge production system. J Knowl Econ 2(3):327–372, http://www.springerlink.com/content/d1lr223321305579/
Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ (2012) Mode 3 knowledge production in quadruple helix innovation systems. 21st-Century democracy, innovation, and entrepreneurship for development. SpringerBriefs in Business, vol 7. Springer, New York, NY, http://www.springer.com/business+%26+management/book/978-1-4614-2061-3 and http://www.springer.com/cda/content/document/cda_downloaddocument/9781461420613-c1.pdf?SGWID=0-0-45-1263639-p174250662
Carayannis EG, Barth TD, Campbell DFJ (2012) The quintuple helix innovation model: global warming as a challenge and driver for innovation. J Innov Entrep 1(1):1–12, http://www.innovation-entrepreneurship.com/content/pdf/2192-5372-1-2.pdf
Cullell JV (2004) Democracy and the quality of democracy. Empirical findings and methodological and theoretical issues drawn from the citizen audit of the quality of democracy in Costa Rica. In: O’Donnell G, Cullell JV, Iazzetta OM (eds) The quality of democracy. Theory and applications. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, IN, pp 93–162
Cunningham F (2002) Theories of democracy. Routledge, London
Dahl RA (1971) Polyarchy. Participation and opposition. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT
Danilda I, Lindberg M, Torstensson B-M (2009) Women resource centres. A quattro helix innovation system on the European agenda. Paper. http://www.hss09.se/own_documents/Papers/3-11%20-%20Danilda%20Lindberg%20&%20Torstensson%20-%20paper.pdf
Democracy Ranking (2011) Democracy ranking 2011 and the democracy improvement ranking 2011. Democracy ranking, Vienna, http://www.democracyranking.org/en/ranking.htm
Diamond L, Morlino L (2004) The quality of democracy. An overview. J Democr 15(4):20–31
Diamond L, Morlino L (2005) Assessing the quality of democracy. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD
Downs A (1957) An economic theory of democracy. Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA
EIU/Economist Intelligence Unit (2010) Democracy index 2010. Democracy in retreat. Economist Intelligence Unit, London, http://graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Democracy_Index_2010_web.pdf
Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L (2000) The dynamics of innovation: from national systems and “Mode 2” to a triple helix of university–industry–government relations. Res Policy 29:109–123
Freedom House (2011a) Freedom in the world 2011. Methodology. Freedom House, Washington, DC, http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=351&ana_page=379&year=2011
Freedom House (2011b) Freedom in the world – population trends. Freedom House, Washington, DC, http://www.freedomhouse.org/images/File/fiw/historical/PopulationTrendsFIW1980-2011.pdf
Freedom House (2011c) Freedom in the world aggregate and subcategory scores. DC. Freedom House, Washington, DC, http://www.freedomhouse.org/images/File/fiw/historical/AggregateScores_FIW2003-2011.xls
Freedom House (2011d) Freedom of the press. Country reports, 2011th edn. Freedom House, Washington, DC, http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=107&year=2011
Fröschl E, Kozeluh U, Schaller C (eds) (2008) Democratisation and de-democratisation in Europe? Austria, Britain, Italy, and the Czech Republic – a comparison. Studienverlag (Transaction Publishers), Innsbruck
Gastil RD (1993) The Comparative Survey of Freedom: Experiences and Suggestions, 21–46. In: Inkeles A (ed) On measuring democracy. Studienverlag (Transaction Publishers), New Brunswick, NJ
Harding S, Phillips D, Fogarty M (1986) Contrasting values in Western Europe. Unity, diversity and change. Studies in the contemporary values of modern society. MacMillan, London
Hausmann R, Tyson LD, Zahidi S (2011) The global gender gap report 2011. World Economic Forum, Genf, http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GenderGap_Report_2011.pdf
Held D (2006) Models of democracy. Stanford University Press, Stanford
Helms L (2007) Die Institutionalisierung der liberalen Demokratie. Deutschland im internationalen Vergleich. Campus, Frankfurt
Heritage Foundation (2011) 2011 Index of economic freedom. Ranking the countries. The Heritage Foundation, Washington, DC, http://www.heritage.org/index/pdf/2011/Index2011_Ranking.pdf
Huddleston T, Niessen J, Chaoimh EN, White E (eds) (2011) Migrant integration policy index III. British Council and Migration Policy Group, Brüssel, http://www.mipex.eu/sites/default/files/downloads/migrant_integration_policy_index_mipexiii_2011.pdf
IDEA/International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (Beetham D, Carvalho E, Landman T, Weir S) (2008) Assessing the quality of democracy. A practical guide. International IDEA, Stockholm, http://www.idea.int/publications/aqd/index.cfm
IMF/International Monetary Fund (2011) World economic outlook, April 2011. International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC, http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2011/01/pdf/text.pdf
Kuhn TS (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL
Lauth H-J (2004) Demokratie und Demokratiemessung. Eine konzeptionelle Grundlegung für den interkulturellen Vergleich. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden
Lauth H-J (2010) Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Demokratiemessung. Zeitschr Staats Europawissensch 8(4):498–529
Lauth H-J (2011) Qualitative Ansätze der Demokratiemessung. Zeitschr Staats Europawissensch 9(1):49–77
Lauth H-J, Pickel G, Welzel C (eds) (2000) Demokratiemessung. Westdeutscher Verlag, Wiesbaden
Marshall TH (1964) Class, citizenship, and social development. Essays. Doubleday, Garden City, NY
Müller WC, Strøm K (2000) Conclusion: coalition governance in Western Europe. In: Müller WC, Strøm K (eds) Coalition governments in Western Europe. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 559–592
Munck GL (2009) Measuring democracy. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD
O’Donnell G (2004a) Human development, human rights, and democracy. In: O’Donnell G, Cullell JV, Iazzetta OM (eds) The quality of democracy. Theory and applications. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, IN, pp 9–92
O’Donnell G (2004b) Why the rule of law matters. J Democr 15(4):32–46
OECD (2011) OECD stat extracts. Social and welfare statistics. OECD, Paris, http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx
Pelinka A (2008) Democratisation and de-democratisation in Austria. In: Fröschl E et al (eds) Democratisation and de-democratisation in Europe? Austria, Britain, Italy, and the Czech Republic – a comparison. Studienverlag (Transaction Publishers), Innsbruck, pp 21–36
Pelinka A, Rosenberger S (2003) Österreichische Politik. Grundlagen, Strukturen, Trends. Facultas WUV, Vienna
Pickel S, Pickel G (2006) Politische Kultur- und Demokratieforschung. Grundbegriffe, Theorien, Methoden. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden
Poier K (2001) Minderheitenfreundliches Mehrheitswahlrecht. Rechts- und politikwissenschaftliche Überlegungen zu Fragen des Wahlrechts und der Wahlsystematik. Böhlau, Vienna
Przeworski A, Alvarez ME, Cheibub JA, Limongi F (2003) Democracy and development. Political institutions and well-being in the world, 1950–1990. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Rosenberger S (ed) (2010) Asylpolitik in Österreich. Unterbringung im Fokus. Facultas, Vienna
Rosenberger S, Seeber G (2008) Wählen. Facultas WUV (UTB), Vienna
Schmidt MG (2010) Demokratietheorien. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden
Schmitter PC (2004) The ambiguous virtues of accountability. J Democr 15(4):47–60
Sickinger H (2009) Politikfinanzierung in Österreich. Czernin, Vienna
Sodaro MJ (2004) Comparative politics. A global introduction. Mc Graw Hill, Boston, MA
Stoiber M (2011) Die Qualität von Demokratien im Vergleich. Zur Bedeutung des Kontextes in der empirisch vergleichenden Demokratietheorie. Baden-Baden, Nomos
TI/Transparency International (2011) Transparency international annual report 2010. TI, Berlin, http://www.transparency.org/content/download/61964/992803
Umpleby SA (1990) The science of cybernetics and the cybernetics of science. Cybernet Syst 21(1):109–121, ftp://ftp.vub.ac.be/pub/projects/Principia_Cybernetica/Papers_Umpleby/Science-Cybernetics.txt
UNDP/United Nations Development Program (2000) Human development report 2000. Human rights and human development. Oxford University Press, Oxford, http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2000/
UNDP/United Nations Development Program (2011) Human development report. Sustainability and equity: a better future for all. UNDP, New York, http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2011_EN_Complete.pdf
Valchars G (2006) Defizitäre Demokratie. Staatsbürgerschaft und Wahlrecht im Einwanderungsland Österreich. Braumüller, Vienna
Vanhanen T (2000) A new dataset for measuring democracy, 1810–1998. J Peace Res 37(2):251–265
Wiener N (1948) Cybernetics or control and communication in the animal and the machine. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York
Wineroither DM (2009) Kanzlermacht – Machtkanzler? Die Regierung Schüssel in historischen und internationalen Vergleich. LIT-Verlag, Vienna
Winiwarter V, Knoll M (2007) Umweltgeschichte. Böhlau, Cologne
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Campbell, D.F.J., Carayannis, E.G. (2014). Explaining and Comparing Quality of Democracy in Quadruple Helix Structures: The Quality of Democracy in the United States and in Austria, Challenges and Opportunities for Development. In: Carayannis, E., Campbell, D., Efthymiopoulos, M. (eds) Cyber-Development, Cyber-Democracy and Cyber-Defense. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1028-1_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1028-1_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-1027-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-1028-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)