Advertisement

Introduction: How to Conceptualize Democracy, Quality of Democracy in Global Comparison and Democracy as Innovation Enabler

  • David F. J. Campbell
Chapter
  • 276 Downloads
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Democracy, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship for Growth book series (DIG)

Abstract

Quality of democracy can also be associated with knowledge democracy. Knowledge democracy emphasizes the importance of knowledge and innovation for the quality of democracy and the sustainable development of democracy, society and economy. Expectations are that democracies with a higher quality of democracy also will be knowledge democracies. “Democracy as Innovation Enabler” has here at least the following meanings: (1) political pluralism in a democracy encourages also a diversity of knowledge and innovation (“Democracy of Knowledge”) that is necessary for development (also economic development and economic growth); (2) advanced economies are driven by knowledge and innovation, so they require a democracy; (3) in principle, “democracy as innovation enabler” also applies to emerging and developing economies, but may not always be realized and applied. The research questions of the analysis here focus on: How to conceptualize and to measure democracy and the quality of democracy in global comparison? The outcome will be the conceptualizing and measuring of quality of democracy in a word-wide format and context. This also will be tested for the proposition (hypothesis) of “democracy as innovation enabler” (which also represents a complementary research question for the analysis).

Keywords

Democracy Democracy development Democracy measurement Conceptualization of democracy Equality Freedom Government/oppositions cycles Global comparison Innovation Innovation enabler Knowledge democracy Political self-organization Political swings Quality of democracy Quintuple-dimensional structure of democracy Self-organization Social ecology Sustainable development 

References

  1. Ataç, I., & Rosenberger, S. (Eds.). (2013). Politik der Inklusion und Exklusion. Vienna: Vienna University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Barth, T. D. (2009). Theoretische Konzeption und Messung der Demokratiequalität: Brasilien, Südafrika, Australien und die Russische Föderation in vergleichender Analyse 1997–2006 [Theoretical Conception and Measurement of the Quality of Democracy: Brazil, South Africa, Australia, and the Russian Federation in Comparative Analysis, 1997–2006]. Master thesis, “Diplomarbeit”. University of Vienna, Vienna.Google Scholar
  3. Barth, T. D. (2010). Konzeption, Messung und Rating der Demokratiequalität. Brasilien, Südafrika, Australien und die Russische Föderation 1997–2006. Saarbrucken: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.Google Scholar
  4. Barth, T. D. (2011). Die 20 besten Demokratien der Welt. Freiheit – Gleichheit – Demokratiequalität auf einen Blick. Norderstedt: Books on Demand.Google Scholar
  5. 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.
  6. Beetham, D. (1994a). Key Principles and Indices for a Democratic Audit. In D. Beetham (Ed.), Defining and Measuring Democracy (pp. 25–43). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Beetham, D. (Ed.). (1994b). Defining and Measuring Democracy. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Beetham, D. (2004). Freedom as the Foundation. Journal of Democracy, 15(4), 61–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Beetham, D., Byrne, I., Ngan, P., & Weir, S. (Eds.). (2002). Democracy Under Blair: A Democratic Audit of the United Kingdom. London: Politico’s Publishing.Google Scholar
  10. Blasche, G. W. E., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2013). Cross-Retirement (Cross-Employed Cross-Retired) and Innovation. 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 (pp. 508–513). New York, NY: Springer. http://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-1-4614-3858-8_255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brand, U., Brunnengräber, A., & Schrader, L. (2000). Global Governance. Alternative zur neoliberalen Globalisierung. Münster: Westfälisches Dampfboot.Google Scholar
  12. Bühlmann, M. (2013). Innovations of Direct Democracy. 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 (pp. 1033–1039). New York, NY: Springer. http://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-1-4614-3858-8_483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bühlmann, M., Merkel, W., Müller, L., & Weßels, B. (2011, December 16). The Democracy Barometer: A New Instrument to Measure the Quality of Democracy and Its Potential for Comparative Research. European Political Science.  https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2011.46 and http://www.palgrave-journals.com/eps/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/eps201146a.html.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bühlmann, M., Merkel, W., & Weßels, B. (2008). The Quality of Democracy: Democracy Barometer for Established Democracies (Revised Version 20.03.2008). National Center of Competence in Research: Challenges to Democracy in the 21st Century (Working Paper No. 10a). http://www.nccr-democracy.uzh.ch/nccr/publications/workingpaper/10.
  15. Campbell, D. F. J. (1992). Die Dynamik der politischen Links-rechts-Schwingungen in Österreich: Die Ergebnisse einer Expertenbefragung. Österreichische Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft (ÖZP), 2, 165–179.Google Scholar
  16. Campbell, D. F. J. (1996). Links- und Rechtsschwingungen in den westlichen Demokratien ab 1945, dissertation, University of Vienna, Vienna.Google Scholar
  17. Campbell, D. F. J. (2002). Zur Demokratiequalität von politischem Wechsel, Wettbewerb und politischem System in Österreich. In D. F. J. Campbell & C. Schaller (Eds.), Demokratiequalität in Österreich (pp. 19–46). Opladen: Leske + Budrich.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.Google Scholar
  19. Campbell, D. F. J. (2008). The Basic Concept for the Democracy Ranking of the Quality of Democracy. Vienna: Democracy Ranking. http://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/29063 and http://democracyranking.org/wordpress/ranking/basic_concept.pdf.
  20. Campbell, D. F. J. (2012). Die österreichische Demokratiequalität in Perspektive [The Quality of Democracy in Austria in Perspective]. In L. Helms & D. M. Wineroither (Eds.), Die österreichische Demokratie im Vergleich [Austrian Democracy in Comparison] (pp. 293–315). Baden-Baden: Nomos. http://www.uni-klu.ac.at/wiho/downloads/QoD-Text_12.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Campbell, D. F. J., & Barth, T. D. (2009). Wie können Demokratie und Demokratiequalität gemessen werden? Modelle, Demokratie-Indices und Länderbeispiele im globalen Vergleich [How Can Democracy and the Quality of Democracy be Measured? Models, Democracy Indices and Country-Based Case Studies in Global Comparison]. SWS-Rundschau [Social Scientific Review], 49(2), 208–233.Google Scholar
  22. Campbell, D. F. J., Barth, T. D., Pölzlbauer, P., & Pölzlbauer, G. (2012). Democracy Ranking (Edition 2012): The Quality of Democracy in the World. Norderstedt: Books on Demand (Democracy Ranking Association).Google Scholar
  23. Campbell, D. F. J., & Carayannis, E. G. (2013a). 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.
  24. Campbell, D. F. J., & Carayannis, E. G. (2013b). Quality of Democracy and Innovation. 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 (pp. 1527–1534). New York, NY: Springer. http://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-1-4614-3858-8_509#.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Campbell, D. F. J., Carayannis, E. G., & Rehman, S. S. (2015). Quadruple Helix Structures of Quality of Democracy in Innovation Systems: The USA, OECD Countries, and EU Member Countries in Global Comparison. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 6(3), 467–493. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13132-015-0246-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.
  28. Campbell, G. S., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2011). The Semi-aquatic Theory: Semi-aquatic Evolutionary Phase and Environment, Language Development of Modern Humans. With a Short Epilog on Conceptualized Evolution, Social Ecology and the Quintuple Helix. International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development, 2(1), 15–30. http://www.igi-global.com/bookstore/titledetails.aspx?titleid=47786 and http://www.igi-global.com/bookstore/article.aspx?titleid=51634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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). New York, NY: Springer. http://www.springer.com/business+%26+management/book/978-1-4614-2061-3.
  33. Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2013). Mode 3 Knowledge Production in Quadruple Helix Innovation Systems: Quintuple Helix and Social Ecology. 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 (pp. 1293–1300). New York, NY: Springer. http://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-1-4614-3858-8_310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.
  35. Carayannis, E. G., & Pirzadeh, A. (2014). The Knowledge of Culture and the Culture of Knowledge: Implications for Theory, Policy and Practice. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. http://www.amazon.de/The-Knowledge-Culture-Implications-Practice/dp/1403942439/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1403080044&sr=8-1&keywords=carayannis+knowledge+of+culture.
  36. Central Intelligence Agency. (2011). The CIA World Factbook 2012. New York, NY: Skyhorse Publishing. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/appendix/appendix-b.html.
  37. Clubb, J. M., Flanigan, W. H., & Zingale, N. H. (1990). Partisan Realignment: Voters, Parties, and Government in American History. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  38. Coppedgea, M., Gerring, J., Altman, D., Bernhard, M., Fish, S., Hicken, A., et al. (2011). Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy: A New Approach. Perspectives on Politics, 9(2), 247–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Cronin, T. E. (1989). Direct Democracy: The Politics of Initiative, Referendum, and Recall. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Cullel, J. V. (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 G. O’Donnell, J. V. Cullell, & O. M. Iazzetta (Eds.), The Quality of Democracy: Theory and Applications (pp. 93–162). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  41. Dahl, R. A. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Dalton, R. J., & Wattenberg, M. P. (Eds.). (2002). Parties Without Partisans: Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. 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.
  44. De Oliveira Monteiro, S. P., & Carayannis, E. G. (Eds.). (2017). The Quadruple Innovation Helix Nexus: A Smart Growth Model, Qualitative Empirical Validation and Operationalization for OECD Countries. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  45. Diamond, L., & Morlino, L. (2004). The Quality of Democracy: An Overview. Journal of Democracy, 15(4), 20–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Downs, A. (1957/1985). An Economic Theory of Democracy. Boston: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  47. Economist Intelligence Unit. (2011). Democracy Index 2010: Democracy in Retreat: A Report from the Economist Intelligence Unit. London: Economist Intelligence Unit. http://graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Democracy_Index_2010_web.pdf.
  48. Eigelsreiter, B. (2017). Consumerization of IT, Cyber-Democracy and Cyber-Crime: The Inherent Challenges and Opportunities of Different Ends of a Continuum. In E. G. Carayannis, D. F. J. Campbell, & M. P. Efthymiopoulos (Eds.), Handbook of Cyber-Development, Cyber-Democracy, and Cyber-Defense. New York, NY: Springer. https://link.springer.com/referencework/10.1007%2F978-3-319-06091-0.
  49. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. European Commission. (2009). The World in 2025: Rising Asia and Socio-ecological Transition. Brussels: European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/research/social-sciences/pdf/the-world-in-2025-report_en.pdf.
  51. Fischer-Kowalski, M. (1998). Society’s Metabolism. The Intellectual History of Materials Flow Analysis, Part I, 1860–1970. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 2(1), 61–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Fischer-Kowalski, M., & Haberl, H. (Eds.). (2007). Socioecological Transitions and Global Change: Trajectories of Social Metabolism and Land Use. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  53. Fischer-Kowalski, M., & Hüttler, W. (1999). Society’s Metabolism: The Intellectual History of Materials Flow Analysis, Part II, 1970–1998. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 2(4), 107–136.Google Scholar
  54. Freedom House. (2011). Freedom in the World 2011: Methodology. Washington, DC: Freedom House. http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=351&ana_page=379&year=2011.
  55. Freedom House. (2013a). Freedom in the World: Aggregate Scores of Political Rights and Civil Liberties, 2003–2013. Washington, DC: Freedom House. http://www.freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/AggregateScores_FIW2003-2013%20%28final%29.xls.
  56. Freedom House. (2013b). Freedom in the World 2013: Methodology. Washington, DC: Freedom House. http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world-2013/methodology.
  57. Geissel, B., Kneuer, M., & Lauth, H.-J. (2016). Measuring the Quality of Democracy: Introduction. International Political Science Review, 37(5), 571–579. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0192512116669141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Gerring, J., Bond, P., Barndt, W. T., & Moreno, C. (2005). Democracy and Economic Growth: A Historical Perspective. World Politics, 57(3), 323–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Giebler, H., & Merkel, W. (2016). Freedom and Equality in Democracies: Is There a Trade-Off? International Political Science Review, 37(5), 594–605. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0192512116642221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Gottweis, H. (1998). Governing Molecules: The Discursive Politics of Genetic Engineering in Europe and the United States. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  61. Haberl, H., Fischer-Kowalski, M., Krausmann, F., Martinez-Alier, J., & Winiwarter, V. (2009). A Socio-metabolic Transition Towards Sustainability? Challenges for Another Great Transformation. Sustainable Development, 17, 20–42.Google Scholar
  62. Haberl, H., Fischer-Kowalski, M., Krausmann, F., Weisz, H., & Winiwarter, V. (2004). Progress Towards Sustainability? What the Conceptual Framework of Material and Energy Flow Accounting (MEFA) Can Offer. Land Use Policy, 21(3), 199–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Hadenius, A., & Teorell, J. (2005). Cultural and Economic Prerequisites of Democracy: Reassessing Recent Evidence. Studies in Comparative International Development, 39(4), 87–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Harding, S., Phillips, D., & Fogarty, M. (1986). Contrasting Values in Western Europe: Unity, Diversity and Change. Studies in the Contemporary Values of Modern Society. Houndmills: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  65. Held, D. (2006). Models of Democracy. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D., & Perraton, J. (1999). Global Transformations: Politics, Economics and Culture. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  67. Helms, L. (2007). Die Institutionalisierung der liberalen Demokratie. Deutschland im internationalen Vergleich. Frankfurt: Campus.Google Scholar
  68. Helms, L. (2013). Innovation and Democracy. 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 (pp. 928–933). New York, NY: Springer. http://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-1-4614-3858-8_262.
  69. Helms, L. (2016). Democracy and Innovation: From Institutions to Agency and Leadership. Democratization, 23(3), 459–477. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13510347.2014.981667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Hemlin, S., Allwood, C. A., & Martin, B. R. (2014). Creative Knowledge Environments: The Influences on Creativity in Research and Innovation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  71. Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2001). Multi-level Governance and European Integration. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  72. Hopwood, B., Mellor, M., & O’Brien, G. (2005). Sustainable Development: Mapping Different Approaches. Sustainable Development, 13, 38–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Huddleston, T., Niessen, J., Chaoimh, E. N., & White, E. (Eds.). (2011). Migrant Integration Policy Index III. Brussels: British Council and Migration Policy Group. http://www.mipex.eu/sites/default/files/downloads/migrant_integration_policy_index_mipexiii_2011.pdf.
  74. Huntington, S. P. (1991). The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
  75. Huntington, S. P. (1997). After Twenty Years: The Future of the Third Wave. Journal of Democracy, 8(4), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 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. Stockholm: International IDEA. http://www.idea.int/publications/aqd/index.cfm.
  77. Inkeles, A. (Ed.). (1993). On Measuring Democracy: Its Consequences and Concomitants. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  78. Kates, R. W., et al. (2001). Environment and Development: Sustainability Science. Science, 292(5517), 641–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Kesselman, M. (1973). Order or Movement? The Literature of Political Development as Ideology. World Politics, 26(1), 139–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Kneuer, M. (2016). E-democracy: A New Challenge for Measuring Democracy. International Political Science Review, 37(5), 666–678. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0192512116657677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Knutsen, C. H. (2010). Measuring Effective Democracy. International Political Science Review, 31(2), 109–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Knutsen, C. H. (2012). Democracy and Economic Growth: A Survey of Arguments and Results. International Area Studies Review, 15(4), 393–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Lauth, H.-J. (2004). Demokratie und Demokratiemessung. Eine konzeptionelle Grundlegung für den interkulturellen Vergleich. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  84. Lauth, H.-J. (2010). Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Demokratiemessung. Zeitschrift für Staats- und Europawissenschaften, 8(4), 498–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Lauth, H.-J. (2011). Qualitative Ansätze der Demokratiemessung. Zeitschrift für Staats- und Europawissenschaften, 9(1), 49–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Lauth, H.-J. (2016). The Internal Relationships of the Dimensions of Democracy: The Relevance of Trade-Offs for Measuring the Quality of Democracy. International Political Science Review, 37(5), 606–617. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0192512116667630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Lauth, H.-J., & Schlenkrich, O. (2018). Making Trade-Offs Visible: Theoretical and Methodological Considerations About the Relationship Between Dimensions and Institutions of Democracy and Empirical Findings. Politics and Governance, 6(1), 78–91. https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/1200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Lijphart, A. (1984). Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty-One Countries. New Haven: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Lijphart, A. (1999). Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  90. Marshall, T. H. (1964). Class, Citizenship, and Social Development: Essays. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  91. Mayne, Q., & B. Geißel. (2018). Don’t Good Democracies Need “Good” Citizens? Citizen Dispositions and the Study of Democratic Quality. Politics and Governance, 6(1), 33–47. https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/1216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. McFaul, M. (2002). The Fourth Wave of Democracy and Dictatorship: Non-cooperative Transitions in the Post-communist World. World Politics, 54(2), 212–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Merkel, W. (2010). Das Ende der Euphorie. Kehren die Diktaturen zurück? Theoretische und empirische Befunde. WZB-Mitteilungen, 127, 36–39. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.187.1917&rep=rep1&type=pdf#page=36.
  94. Merz, M., & P. Sormani (rédacteurs). (2016). The Local Configuration of New Research Fields: On Regional and National Diversity. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  95. MIPEX/Migrant Integration Policy Index. (2013). Migrant Integration Policy Index. Brussels: British Council and Migration Policy Group. http://www.mipex.eu/.
  96. Mitterlehner, B. (2014): Cyber-Democracy and Cybercrime: Two Sides of the Same Coin. 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 (pp. 207–230). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  97. Møller, J., & Skaaning, S.-E. (2010). Beyond the Radial Delusion: Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy and Non-democracy. International Political Science Review, 31(3), 261–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Morlino, L., & Quaranta, M. (2016). What Is the Impact of the Economic Crisis on Democracy? Evidence from Europa. International Political Science Review, 37(5), 618–633. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0192512116639747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Müller, W. C., & Strøm, K. (2000a). Conclusion: Coalition Governance in Western Europe. In W. C. Müller & K. Strøm (Eds.), Coalition Governments in Western Europe (pp. 559–592). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  100. Müller, W. C., & Strøm, K. (Eds.). (2000b). Coalition Governments in Western Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  101. Munck, G. L. (2009). Measuring Democracy: A Bridge Between Scholarship and Politics. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  102. Munck, G. L. (2014). What Is Democracy? A Reconceptualization of the Quality of Democracy. Political Concepts: Committee on Concepts and Methods. Working Paper Series (Working Paper 60, May 2014). http://www.concepts-methods.org/Files/WorkingPaper/60%20Munck%20(2014).pdf.
  103. Munck, G. L. (2016). What Is Democracy? A Reconceptualization of the Quality of Democracy. Democratization, 23(1), 1–26. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13510347.2014.918104?scroll=top&needAccess=true.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Munck, G. L., & Verkuilen, J. (2002). Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy: Evaluating Alternative Indices. Comparative Political Studies, 35(1), 5–34.Google Scholar
  105. Nussbaum, M. (2000). Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. O’Donnell, G. (2004a). Why the Rule of Law Matters. Journal of Democracy, 15(4), 32–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. O’Donnell, G. (2004b). Human Development, Human Rights, and Democracy. In G. O’Donnell, J. V. Cullell, & O. M. Iazzetta (Eds.), The Quality of Democracy: Theory and Applications (pp. 9–92). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  108. O’Donnell, G. (2005). Why the Rule of Law Matters. In L. Diamond & L. Morlino (Eds.), Assessing the Quality of Democracy (pp. 3–17). Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  109. Paslack, R. (1991). Urgeschichte der Selbstorganisation. Zur Archäologie eines wissenschaftlichen Paradigmas. Wiesbaden: Vieweg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Pelinka, A. (2008). Democratisation and De-democratisation in Austria. In E. Fröschl, U. Kozeluh, & C. Schaller (Eds.), Democratisation and De-democratisation in Europe? Austria, Britain, Italy, and the Czech Republic—A Comparison (pp. 21–36). Innsbruck: Studienverlag (Transaction Publishers).Google Scholar
  111. Pickel, S., & Pickel, G. (2006). Politische Kultur- und Demokratieforschung. Grundbegriffe, Theorie, Methoden. Eine Einführung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  112. Poier, K. (2001). Minderheitenfreundliches Mehrheitswahlrecht. Rechts- und politikwissenschaftliche Überlegungen zu Fragen des Wahlrechts und der Wahlsystematik. Vienna: Böhlau.Google Scholar
  113. Prainsack, B., Schicktanz, S., & Werner-Felmayer, G. (2014). Genetics as Social Practice: Transdisciplinary Views on Science and Culture. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  114. 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.Google Scholar
  115. Rhodes, R. A. W. (1996). The New Governance: Governing Without Government. Political Studies, XLIV, 652–667. http://law.hku.hk/gl/rhodes.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Rosenberger, S. (Ed.). (2010). Asylpolitik in Österreich. Unterbringung im Fokus. Vienna: Facultas.Google Scholar
  117. Rothstein, B., & Teorell, J. (2008). What Is Quality of Government? A Theory of Impartial Government Institutions. Governance, 21(2), 165–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Rothstein, B., & Uslaner, E. M. (2005). All for All: Equality, Corruption, and Social Trust. World Politics, 58(1), 41–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Saward, M. (Ed.). (2000). Democratic Innovation: Deliberation, Representation and Association. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  120. Schedler, A. (2006). Electoral Authoritarianism: The Dynamics of Unfree Competition. Boulder, CO: L. Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
  121. Schlattl, G. (2013). The Quality of Democracy-Concept vs. The Quintuple Helix: On the Virtues of Minimalist vs. Maximalist Approaches in Assessing the Quality of Democracy and the Quality of Society. International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development, 4(1), 66–85. http://www.igi-global.com/article/quality-democracy-concept-quintuple-helix/77347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Schlesinger, A. M., Jr. (1986). The Cycles of American History. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  123. Schmidt, M. G. (1983). Politische Zusammensetzung der Regierungen. In M. G. Schmidt (Ed.), Westliche Industriegesellschaften: Wirtschaft – Gesellschaft – Politik (pp. 371–375). Munich: Piper Verlag.Google Scholar
  124. Schmidt, M. G. (2010). Demokratietheorien. Eine Einführung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  126. Sodaro, M. J. (2004). Comparative Politics: A Global Introduction. With contributions by D. W. Collinwood, B. J. Dickson, J. L. Klesner, & T. D. Sisk (2nd ed.). New York: Mc Graw Hill.Google Scholar
  127. Strøm, K., Müller, W. C., & Bergman, T. (Eds.). (2004). Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  128. UNDP/United Nations Development Program. (2011). Human Development Report 2011. Sustainability and Equity: A Better Future for All. New York, NY: United Nations (United Nations Development Program). http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2011_EN_Complete.pdf.
  129. Vadrot, A. B. M. (2011). Reflections on Mode 3, the Co-evolution of Knowledge and Innovation Systems and How It Relates to Sustainable Development. Conceptual Framework for “Epistemic Governance”. International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development, 2(1), 44–52. http://www.igi-global.com/bookstore/article.aspx?titleid=51636.
  130. Veld, R. J. in´t. (2010a). Knowledge Democracy: Consequences for Science, Politics, and Media. Heidelberg: Springer. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-642-11381-9.
  131. Veld, R. J. in´t. (2010b). Towards Knowledge Democracy. In R. J. in´t Veld (Ed.), Knowledge Democracy: Consequences for Science, Politics, and Media (pp. 1–11). Heidelberg: Springer. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-11381-9_1.
  132. Wagner, C. S., Roessner, D., Bobba, K., Klein, J. T., Boyack, K. W., Keytond, J., et al. (2011). Approaches to Understanding and Measuring Interdisciplinary Scientific Research (IDR): A Review of the Literature. Journal of Informetrics, 165, 14–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Walter, F., Rosenberger, S., & Ptaszyńska, A. (2013). Challenging the Boundaries of Democratic Inclusion? Young People’s Attitudes About the Distribution of Voting Rights. Citizenship Studies, 17(3), 464–478. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13621025.2012.707008 and http://inex.univie.ac.at/news-einzelansicht/article/article-online-challenging-the-boundaries/?tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=61650&cHash=e08c9f5c67a73acbb8d4aa45f0aa8fed.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • David F. J. Campbell
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Department for Continuing Education Research and Educational Management, Center for Educational Management and Higher Education DevelopmentDanube University KremsKrems an der DonauAustria
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria
  3. 3.University of Applied Arts ViennaViennaAustria
  4. 4.Faculty for Interdisciplinary Studies (iff), Department of Science Communication and Higher Education Research (WIHO)Alpen-Adria-Universität KlagenfurtViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations