Abstract
The analytical research question of this contribution is twofold. (1) To develop (and to proto-type) a conceptual framework of analysis for a global comparison of quality of democracy. This framework also references to the concept of the “Quadruple Helix innovation systems” (Carayannis and Campbell). (2) The same conceptual framework is being used and tested for comparing and measuring empirical quality of democracy in the different OECD and European Union (EU27) member countries. 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 (conceptual) dimensions of freedom, equality, control, and sustainable development for explaining and comparing democracy and quality of democracy. Put in summary, we may conclude for the USA that the comparative strength of quality of democracy in the USA focuses on the dimension of freedom. The comparative weakness of the quality of democracy in the USA lies in the dimension of equality, most importantly income equality. Quadruple Helix refers here to at least two crucial perspectives: (1) the unfolding of an innovative knowledge economy also requires (at least in a longer perspective) the unfolding of a knowledge democracy; (2) knowledge and innovation are being defined as key for sustainable development and for the further evolution of quality of democracy. How to innovate (and reinvent) knowledge democracy? There is a potential that democracy discourses and innovation discourses advance in a next-step and two-way mutual cross-reference. The architectures of Quadruple Helix (and Quintuple Helix) innovation systems demand and require the formation of a democracy, implicating that quality of democracy provides for a support and encouragement of innovation and innovation systems, so that quality of democracy and progress of innovation mutually “Cross-Helix” in a connecting and amplifying mode and manner. This relates research on quality of democracy to research on innovation (innovation systems) and the knowledge economy. “Cyber democracy” receives here a new and important meaning.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
See also the Web site of “Arts, Research, Innovation and Society” (ARIS): http://www.dieangewandte.at/aris
Most, however not all, member countries of the EU are also member countries to the OECD.
Quotes from original sources in German were translated into English by the authors of this analysis.
Since our analysis is more explorative in character (wanting to test the design of a developed comparative framework), the year 2010 qualifies as sufficiently recent.
This reference year of 2012 explains why we did not include Croatia into our analysis. Croatia joined the European Union as late as 2013 (creating by this the EU28).
These dimensions we want to interpret as “Basic Dimensions” of democracy and of the quality of democracy.
Visit for more detailed information the website of the Democracy Ranking at http://democracyranking.org/
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 %.
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/
For a systematic attempt of empirical assessment on possible linkages between democracy and development, see Przeworski et al. (2003).
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.
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
For an overview, see http://www.idea.int/sod/worldwide/reports.cfm
In the meantime, this book already can be downloaded for free as a whole and complete PDF from the web. Visit the following link: http://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/View/?resid=12473
“Grundrechte” here may be interpreted as human rights as they are being proposed by Guillermo O’Donnell (2004a, pp. 12, 47).
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).
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.
See also http://www.democracyranking.org/en/
See also on the web the newest and most recent scores of the Democracy Ranking 2014: http://democracyranking.org/?page_id=828
We will also add a few comments on quality of democracy in Austria.
Interestingly, with regard to political rights and civil liberties, the USA ranks behind Austria.
Levels of corruption are being perceived to be higher in the USA than in Austria.
In the Democracy Ranking 2011, Austrian democracy scores higher than the USA.
On migrant integration policy, Austria scores dramatically lower than the USA.
Thought about this from a different angle, it also would be possible to compare the different (50) states of the USA individually with the different (national) member countries to the European Union. In that sense, the whole USA also resembles an “aggregation”; therefore, it makes additional sense to compare the USA with an aggregation of the EU member countries.
On political freedom and income equality, the EU15 is internationally more competitive than the EU27 (Campbell 2013, pp. 336, 340).
Does this furthermore mark “archetypical” differences in political philosophy?
Focusing more specifically on the situation of Austrian democracy, the following publications deal with quality of Austrian democracy by referring (in greater detail) to a wider spectrum of themes: Beetham 1994; Campbell 2002, pp. 30–31, 39; Campbell 2007, pp. 392–393, 402; Campbell 2011; Campbell 2015; IDEA 2008; Müller and Strøm 2000, p. 589; Pelinka 2008; Poier 2001; Rosenberger 2010; Sickinger 2009; Valchars 2006; Wineroither 2009.
See also forthcoming Carayannis et al. (2017).
References
Barth, T. D. (2010). Konzeption, Messung und Rating der Demokratiequalität. Brasilien, Südafrika, Australien und die Russische Föderation 1997-2006. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.
Barth, T. D. (2011). Die 20 besten Demokratien der Welt. Freiheit – Gleichheit – Demokratiequalität auf einen Blick. Norderstedt: Books on Demand.
Bast, G., Carayannis, E.G., Campbell, D.F.J., (Eds.) (2015). Arts, Research, Innovation and Society. New York, NY: Springer (http://www.springer.com/business+%26+management/technology+management/book/978-3-319-09908-8).
Beck, E. R. A., & Schaller, C. (2003). Zur Qualität der britischen und österreichischen Demokratie. Vienna: Böhlau.
Beetham, D. (1994). Key principles and indices for a democratic audit, 25-43. In D. Beetham (Ed.), Defining and measuring democracy. London: Sage.
Beetham, D. (2004). Freedom as the foundation. Journal of Democracy, 15(4), 61–75.
Beetham, D., Byrne, I., Ngan, P., & Weir, S. (Eds.). (2002). Democracy under Blair. A democratic audit of the United Kingdom. London: Politico’s Publishing.
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 (16 December 2011), doi:10.1057/eps.2011.46 (http://www.palgrave-journals.com/eps/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/eps201146a.html).
Campbell, D.F.J. (2002). Zur Demokratiequalität von politischem Wechsel, Wettbewerb und politischem System in Österreich, 19-46. In D. F. J. Campbell, C. Schaller (Eds.), Demokratiequalität in Österreich. Opladen: Leske + Budrich (http://www.oegpw.at/sek_agora/publikationen.htm and http://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/View/?resid=12473).
Campbell, D.F.J. (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, D.F.J. (2008). The basic concept for the democracy ranking of the quality of democracy. Vienna: Democracy Ranking (http://www.democracyranking.org/downloads/basic_concept_democracy_ranking_2008_A4.pdf).
Campbell, D.F.J. (2011). Key findings (Summary abstract) of the Democracy Ranking 2011 and of the Democracy Improvement Ranking 2011. Vienna: Democracy Ranking (http://www.democracyranking.org/downloads/Key-findings_Democracy-Ranking_2011_en-A4.pdf).
Campbell, D. F. J. (2012). Die österreichische Demokratiequalität in Perspektive [The Quality of Democracy in Austria in Perspective], 293-315. In L. Helms & D. M. Wineroither (Eds.), Die österreichische Demokratie im Vergleich [Austrian Democracy in Comparison]. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Campbell, D. F. J. (2013). Conceptualizing and measuring the quality of democracy in global comparison. freedom, equality, sustainable development, and political self-organization (Political Swings, Government/Opposition Cycles) in 151 countries (democracies, semi-democracies and non-democracies), 2002-2008. Habilitation Treatise (“Habilitationsschrift”). Vienna: University of Vienna.
Campbell, D.F.J. (2015). Reformvorschläge für Österreichs Demokratie: Diskussionspunkte zur Demokratiequalität [Reform Proposal for Austrian Democracy: Discussion Points on Quality of Democracy], 43-56. In T. Öhlinger, K. Poier (Eds.): Direkte Demokratie und Parlamentarismus. Wie kommen wir zu den besten Entscheidungen? [Direct Democracy and Parliamentarism. How Do We Make the Best Decisions?] Vienna: Böhlau (http://www.amazon.de/Direkte-Demokratie-Parlamentarismus-kommen-Entscheidungen/dp/3205796659/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1423650423&sr=8-1&keywords=klaus+poier).
Campbell, D.F.J., Barth, T.D. (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, D.F.J., Carayannis, E.G. (2013a). Quality of Democracy and Innovation, 1527-1534, In E.G. Carayannis (Editor-in-Chief) / I. N. Dubina, N. Seel, D. F. J. Campbell, D. Uzunidis (Associate Editors): Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship. New York, NY: Springer (http://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-1-4614-3858-8_509#).
Campbell, D.F.J., Carayannis, E.G. (2013b). Epistemic governance in higher education. Quality Enhancement of Universities for Development. (SpringerBriefs in Business.). New York, NY: Springer (http://www.springer.com/business+%26+management/organization/book/978-1-4614-4417-6).
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, 117-148. In E.G. Carayannis, D. F. J. Campbell, M. P. Efthymiopoulos (Eds.): Cyber-Development, Cyber-Democracy and Cyber-Defense. Challenges, Opportunities and Implications for Theory, Policy and Practice. New York, NY: Springer (http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-4939-1028-1 and http://www.springer.com/de/book/9781493910274).
Campbell, D.F.J., Schaller, C., (Eds.) (2002). Demokratiequalität in Österreich. Zustand und Entwicklungsperspektiven. Opladen: Leske + Budrich (http://www.oegpw.at/sek_agora/publikationen.htm und http://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/View/?resid=12473).
Campbell, D.F.J., Sükösd, M. (Eds.) (2002). Feasibility study for a quality ranking of democracies. Vienna: Global Democracy Award. (http://www.democracyranking.org/downloads/feasibility_study-a4-e-01.pdf).
Campbell, D. F. J., Liebhart, K., Martinsen, R., Schaller, C., & Schedler, A. (Eds.). (1996). Die Qualität der österreichischen Demokratie. Versuche einer Annäherung. Vienna: Manz.
Campbell, D.F.J., Carayannis, E.G., Barth, T.D., Campbell, G.S. (2013). Measuring democracy and the quality of democracy in a world-wide approach: models and indices of democracy and the new findings of the “Democracy ranking”. International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development 4 (1), 1-16 (http://www.igi-global.com/article/measuring-democracy-quality-democracy-world/77344).
Carayannis, E.G., Campbell, D.F.J. (2009). “Mode 3” and “Quadruple Helix”: Toward a 21st Century Fractal Innovation Ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management 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, E.G., & Campbell, D.F.J. (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. International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development, 1 (1), 41-69 (http://www.igi-global.com/bookstore/article.aspx?titleid=41959).
Carayannis, E.G., Campbell, D.F.J. (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. Journal of the Knowledge Economy 2 (3), 327-372 (http://www.springerlink.com/content/d1lr223321305579/).
Carayannis, E.G., Campbell, D.F.J. (2012). Mode 3 knowledge production in quadruple helix innovation systems. 21st-Century Democracy, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship for Development. SpringerBriefs in Business, Volume 7. New York, New York: Springer (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, E.G., Campbell, D.F.J. (2014). Developed democracies versus emerging autocracies: arts, democracy, and innovation in quadruple helix innovation systems. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship 3:12 (http://www.innovation-entrepreneurship.com/content/pdf/s13731-014-0012-2.pdf and http://www.innovation-entrepreneurship.com/content/3/1/12)
Carayannis, E.G., Campbell, D.F.J. (2015). Art and artistic research in quadruple and quintuple helix innovation systems, 29-51. In G. Bast, E. G. Carayannis, D. F. J. Campbell (Eds.). Arts, Research, Innovation and Society. New York, NY: Springer (http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-09909-5_3).
Carayannis, E.G., Barth, T.D., Campbell, D.F.J. (2012). The quintuple helix innovation model: global warming as a challenge and driver for innovation. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship 1 (1), 1-12 (http://www.innovation-entrepreneurship.com/content/pdf/2192-5372-1-2.pdf).
Carayannis, E.G., Campbell, D.F.J., Efthymiopoulos, M.P., (Eds.) (2017). Handbook of cyber-development, cyber-democracy, and cyber-defense. New York, NY: Springer (forthcoming) (http://www.springer.com/economics/policy/book/978-3-319-09068-9).
Cullell, J. V. et al. (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, 93-162. In G. O’Donnell, J. V. Cullell, & O. M. Iazzetta (Eds.), The quality of democracy. Theory and applications. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Cunningham, F. (2002). Theories of democracy. London: Routledge.
Dahl, R. A. (1971). Polyarchy. Participation and opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press.
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. Vienna: Democracy Ranking (http://www.democracyranking.org/en/ranking.htm).
Diamond, L., & Morlino, L. (2004). The quality of democracy. An overview. Journal of Democracy, 15(4), 20–31.
Diamond, L., & Morlino, L. (2005). Assessing the quality of democracy. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. Boston: Addison-Wesley.
EIU / Economist Intelligence Unit (2010). Democracy Index 2010. Democracy in Retreat. London: Economist Intelligence Unit (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. Research Policy, 29, 109–123.
Freedom House (2011a). Freedom in the World 2011. Methodology. Washington, DC: Freedom House (http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=351&ana_page=379&year=2011).
Freedom House (2011b). Freedom in the World – Population Trends. Washington, DC: Freedom House (http://www.freedomhouse.org/images/File/fiw/historical/PopulationTrendsFIW1980-2011.pdf).
Freedom House (2011c). Freedom in the World Aggregate and Subcategory Scores. Washington, DC. Freedom House (http://www.freedomhouse.org/images/File/fiw/historical/AggregateScores_FIW2003-2011.xls).
Freedom House (2011d). Freedom of the Press (2011 Edition). Country Reports. Washington, DC. Freedom House (http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=107&year=2011).
Fröschl, E., Kozeluh, U., & Schaller, C. (2008). Democratisation and de-democratisation in Europe? Austria, Britain, Italy, and the Czech Republic—a comparison. Innsbruck: Studienverlag (Transaction Publishers).
Gastil, R. D. (1993). The comparative survey of freedom: Experiences and suggestions, 21-46. In A. Inkeles (Ed.), On measuring democracy. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Harding, S., Phillips, D., & Fogarty, M. (1986). Contrasting values in Western Europe. Unity, diversity and change. Studies in the contemporary values of modern society. London: Macmillan.
Hausmann, R., Tyson, L.D., Zahidi, S. (Hrsg) (2011). The Global Gender Gap Report 2011. Genf: World Economic Forum (http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GenderGap_Report_2011.pdf).
Held, D. (2006). Models of democracy. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
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. Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation (http://www.heritage.org/index/pdf/2011/Index2011_Ranking.pdf).
Huddleston, T., Niessen, J., Ni Chaoimh, E., White, E. (Eds.) (2011). Migrant integration policy index III. Brüssel: British Council and Migration Policy Group (http://www.mipex.eu/sites/default/files/downloads/migrant_integration_policy_index_mipexiii_2011.pdf).
IDEA / International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (David Beetham / Edzia Carvalho / Todd Landman / Stuart Weir) (2008). Assessing the quality of democracy. A Practical Guide. Stockholm: International IDEA (http://www.idea.int/publications/aqd/index.cfm).
IMF / International Monetary Fund (2011). World Economic Outlook, April 2011. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2011/01/pdf/text.pdf).
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lauth, H.-J. (2004). Demokratie und Demokratiemessung. Eine konzeptionelle Grundlegung für den interkulturellen Vergleich. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Lauth, H.-J. (2010). Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Demokratiemessung. Zeitschrift für Staats- und Europawissenschaften, 8(4), 498–529.
Lauth, H.-J. (2011). Qualitative Ansätze der Demokratiemessung. Zeitschrift für Staats- und Europawissenschaften, 9(1), 49–77.
Lauth, H.-J., Pickel, G., & Welzel, C. (Eds.). (2000). Demokratiemessung. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Marshall, T. H. (1964). Class, citizenship, and social development. Essays. Garden City: Doubleday.
Müller, W. C., & Strøm, K. (2000). Conclusion: Coalition governance in Western Europe, 559-592. In K. Strøm & W. C. Müller (Eds.), Coalition governments in Western Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Munck, G. L. (2009). Measuring democracy. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
O’Donnell, G. (2004a). Human development, human rights, and democracy, 9-92. In G. O’Donnell, J. V. Cullell, & O. M. Iazzetta (Eds.), The quality of democracy. Theory and applications. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
O’Donnell, G. (2004b). Why the rule of law matters. Journal of Democracy, 15(4), 32–46.
OECD (2011). OECD.Stat Extracts. Social and Welfare Statistics. Paris: OECD (http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx).
Pelinka, A. (2008). Democratisation and de-democratisation in Austria, 21-36. In E. Fröschl et al. (Eds.), Democratisation and de-democratisation in Europe? Austria, Britain, Italy, and the Czech Republic—a comparison. Innsbruck: Studienverlag (Transaction Publishers).
Pelinka, A., & Rosenberger, S. (2003). Österreichische Politik. Grundlagen, Strukturen, Trends. Vienna: Facultas WUV.
Pickel, S., & Pickel, G. (2006). Politische Kultur- und Demokratieforschung. Grundbegriffe, Theorien, Methoden. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Poier, K. (2001). Minderheitenfreundliches Mehrheitswahlrecht. Rechts- und politikwissenschaftliche Überlegungen zu Fragen des Wahlrechts und der Wahlsystematik. Vienna: Böhlau.
Przeworski, A., Alvarez, M. E., Cheibub, J. A., & Limongi, F. (2003). Democracy and development. Political institutions and well-being in the world, 1950-1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rosenberger, S. (Ed.). (2010). Asylpolitik in Österreich. Unterbringung im Fokus. Vienna: Facultas.
Rosenberger, S., & Seeber, G. (2008). Wählen. Vienna: Facultas WUV (UTB).
Schmidt, M. G. (2010). Demokratietheorien. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Schmitter, P. C. (2004). The ambiguous virtues of accountability. Journal of Democracy, 15(4), 47–60.
Sickinger, H. (2009). Politikfinanzierung in Österreich. Vienna: Czernin.
Sodaro, M. J. (2004). Comparative politics. A global introduction. Boston: Mc Graw Hill.
Stoiber, M. (2011). Die Qualität von Demokratien im Vergleich. Zur Bedeutung des Kontextes in der empirisch vergleichenden Demokratietheorie. Nomos: Baden-Baden.
TI / Transparency International (2011). Transparency International Annual Report 2010. Berlin: TI (http://www.transparency.org/content/download/61964/992803).
Umpleby, S.A. (1990). The science of cybernetics and the cybernetics of science. Cybernetics and Systems 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: Oxford University Press (http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2000/).
UNDP / United Nations Development Program (2011). Human Development Report 2011. Sustainability and Equity: A Better Future for All. New York: UNDP (http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2011_EN_Complete.pdf).
Valchars, G. (2006). Defizitäre Demokratie. Staatsbürgerschaft und Wahlrecht im Einwanderungsland Österreich. Vienna: Braumüller.
Vanhanen, T. (2000). A new dataset for measuring democracy, 1810-1998. Journal of Peace Research, 37(2), 251–265.
Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics or control and communication in the animal and the machine. New York: Wiley.
Wineroither, D. M. (2009). Kanzlermacht – Machtkanzler? Die Regierung Schüssel in historischen und internationalen Vergleich. Vienna: LIT-Verlag.
Winiwarter, V., & Knoll, M. (2007). Umweltgeschichte. Cologne: Böhlau.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Campbell, D.F.J., Carayannis, E.G. & Rehman, S.S. Quadruple Helix Structures of Quality of Democracy in Innovation Systems: the USA, OECD Countries, and EU Member Countries in Global Comparison. J Knowl Econ 6, 467–493 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-015-0246-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-015-0246-7