Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Global Quality of Democracy as Innovation Enabler

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).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    When employing the phrase of concepts and theories of democracy and democracies , the author wants to demonstrate his inclination that the “boundaries” between concepts and theories of democracy should be regarded to be volatile, flexible and fleeting.

  2. 2.

    Visit Freedom House at: http://www.freedomhouse.org/.

  3. 3.

    The official wording here is “democratic audit”. We assert (or at least propose) that a democratic audit also could be re-phrased or re-worded (interpreted) as a democracy audit.

  4. 4.

    In reference to these key principles, David Beetham (1994, p. 34) adds and comments: “It would be both remarkable and disturbing, if there were no convergence over the criteria for ‘free and fair elections’ or ‘civil and political rights’, where there exist the most clearly established international standards. Even here, however, our insistence on the democratic principles of political equality takes us beyond the very minimal acknowledgment of universal suffrage typical of most other indices, to which we add such criteria as: equal value for each vote, equal opportunity to stand for public office, fair access for all social groups and parties to the means of communication with the electorate, and so on. And our extension of the democratic indices into the areas of open and accountable government and a democratic society constitute a considerable extension of focus beyond these other indices”.

  5. 5.

    See the website of IDEA at: http://www.idea.int/.

  6. 6.

    See the overview under: http://www.idea.int/sod/worldwide/index.cfm (see also http://www.idea.int/sod/profiles/index.cfm).

  7. 7.

    See later Hypothesis 12 and 15 in Sect. 7.2.

  8. 8.

    Electoral democracy and liberal democracy represent established concepts and categories in the Euro-American discourses on democracy and serve as references for democracy debate.

  9. 9.

    This book was published first back in 1957.

  10. 10.

    “Damit ein System als liberale Demokratie, oder schlicht als liberal-demokratisch, bezeichnet werden kann, müssen sowohl liberale als auch demokratische Elemente in hinreichendem Umfang verwirklicht sein” (Helms 2007, p. 18).

  11. 11.

    “Die in dieser Studie behandelten Regierungssysteme Westeuropas, Nordamerikas und Japans lassen sich – bei allen Unterschieden – eindeutig als liberale Demokratien bezeichnen” (Helms 2007, p. 20).

  12. 12.

    In congruence with that it should be further noted that democracy fully established itself at least at the level of ideas or in the “world of ideas”. With very few exceptions, there exists currently no (almost no) state that does not at least formally self-describe itself as a democracy. So there is a universal assertion of all states to represent a democracy in the early twenty-first century. Of course, in no way this implies an automatic match between this assertion and practice in reality.

  13. 13.

    Government and governance often associate closely, but are not necessarily identical. As already Rhodes (1996) has noted, there can be a “Governing without Government ”. For example, this may refer to self-organizing networks or policy networks of higher complexities (see also Campbell and Carayannis 2013a, p. 15).

  14. 14.

    The full quote of the crucial passage of Lincoln’s speech is: “It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom —and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettysburg_address). Furthermore, see also Sodaro (2004, p. 168).

  15. 15.

    Traditionally, in the western U.S. states there is by tendency more of an emphasis on direct democracy (Cronin 1989, p. 47).

  16. 16.

    Elections, voting and voting systems are of a particular interest for political science. For an interesting discussion on Austria, see Poier (2001).

  17. 17.

    Here, Anton Pelinka (2008, p. 23) asserts: “Democracy has come to be mainly understood as a principle on which to base the organization of the state and no longer as a principle employed in shaping society at large”. Other authors, however, probably would see and assess this differently (for example, compare with David Beetham 1994, p. 34).

  18. 18.

    For an overview of all human development reports, also for a free downloading, see http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/. Furthermore, see http://hdr.undp.org/en/.

  19. 19.

    Arguments in this paragraph are reproduced on the basis of Campbell (2008, pp. 27–28). See text (Campbell 2008) in the reference list, also the web source for a possible direct and free download.

  20. 20.

    See the website of the Democracy Ranking at: http://democracyranking.org/.

  21. 21.

    Here, we do not distinguish between freedom and liberty.

  22. 22.

    “Ein erstes Fazit der Demokratiediskussion zeigt: Alle drei Dimensionen (politische Gleichheit, politische Freiheit und rechtsstaatliche und politische Kontrolle) sind konstitutive Merkmale von Demokratie und zusammen notwendig und hinreichend für ihre Definition” (Lauth 2004, p. 96).

  23. 23.

    Visit the website of the Democracy Barometer at: http://www.democracybarometer.org/ or http://www.democracybarometer.org/start_en.html.

  24. 24.

    See http://www.democracybarometer.org/start_en.html.

  25. 25.

    See http://www.democracybarometer.org/concept_en.html.

  26. 26.

    The notion of “basic conceptual dimensions ” should emphasize that these (five) basic dimensions are analytically “constructed” dimensions in reflection of a reviewing of discourses on democracy and democracy research .

  27. 27.

    Rainer Paslack interprets “self-organization” as a scientific paradigm, which, however, dates as far back as the classical Greek philosophy. According to Paslack, the modern focus on self-organization was launched mainly in the 1960s. Paslack (1991, p. 1) asserts: “Seit Beginn der 1960er Jahre bahnt sich eine wissenschaftliche Revolution an, die inzwischen unter dem Sammelbegriff ‘Selbstorganisation’ zu einem großangelegten, nahezu alle Wissenschaftsdizsiplinen umfassenden Forschungsprogramm ausgereift ist. Im Mittelpunkt dieses neuen Konzepts steht die Untersuchung der spontanen Entstehung, Höherentwicklung und Ausdifferenzierung von Ordnung in dynamischen Systemen fern ab vom Gleichgewicht”.

  28. 28.

    Here, a certain structural analogy between the quintuple-dimensional structure of democracy and the quality of democracy , on the one hand, and the “Quadruple Helix ” innovation systems of “Quintuple Helix ” innovation systems, on the other, may be proposed. On Quadruple Helix and Quintuple Helix approaches in knowledge production and innovation see Carayannis and Campbell (2009, 2010, p. 62; 2012, p. 14).

  29. 29.

    In this context I want to thank Marc Bühlmann, with whom I had carried out a very interesting discussion on that subject. The way how Fig. 1.8 arranges the basic dimensions and input/output/throughput distinction represents my personal conclusion of that debate.

  30. 30.

    However, as we also mention and indicate in Fig. 1.10 that the two political -swing-indicators, which we assign to the dimension of self-organization, could alternatively be aligned to the dimension of control .

  31. 31.

    These two government -opposition-cycle-indicators (political swings ) are: (1) “peaceful person change of head of government ”; (2) “peaceful party change of head of government ” (see later for more details the analysis in Chapter 6).

  32. 32.

    The theoretically lowest possible value (score) may even be lower than the empirically lowest observed value (sore). For example, the theoretically lowest life expectancy at birth in total years is “0”. However, in practice there will be no country (or society ) with a life expectancy of “0”, since this would then represent a country without a (living) population.

  33. 33.

    The main period of the major data retrieval procedure for our analysis here was the fall of 2017.

  34. 34.

    David Beetham (1994, p. 32) apparently points in a similar direction, when we follow his arguments: “This brings me to a second issue, about the measurability of the indices used in a democratic audit, and along what kind of scale. It should be evident from everything said so far that we see democracy not as an all-or-nothing affair but as a comparative concept, with each of the indices representing a continuum rather that the simple alternative of democratic/non-democratic.”

  35. 35.

    Later in Sect. 2.3 we discuss possible procedures for an empirical identification of “democracies ”, “semi-democracies ” and “non-democracies ”.

  36. 36.

    The basic dimension of “control ” does not represent a major focus for our analysis here (see again Fig. 1.7). Alternatively formulated, some of the indicators, which we use, may also be (dimensionally speaking) assigned to other dimensions and sub-dimensions, different than we did it in our analysis.

  37. 37.

    The one assertion here is: “Die Analyse hier wird aber von der zusätzlichen Annahme getragen (die nicht unbedingt geteilt werden muss), dass es zwischen Demokratietheorie einerseits und Demokratiemessung andererseits wichtige (auch konzeptionelle) Wechselbezüge gibt. In dieser Logik verlangt eine Weiterentwicklung oder Verbesserung von Demokratietheorie, dass es systematische Versuche der Demokratiemessung geben soll, so unvollständig oder lückenhaft eine empirische Demokratievermessung auch jeweils sein mag” (Campbell 2012, p. 294).

  38. 38.

    Here we would like to restate and re-cite an already earlier made statement (see Sect. 1.2), namely that the notion of “basic conceptual dimensions ” should emphasize that such identified basic dimensions are analytically “constructed” dimensions in reflection of a reviewing of discourses on democracy and democracy research . In that logic, these basic dimensions are not “naturally” pre-given or pre-set.

  39. 39.

    “‘Social ecology ’ looks at the “society -nature interactions’ between ‘human society ’ (‘culture’, the ‘cultural (symbolic) sphere of causation’) and the ‘material world ’ (‘nature’, the ‘natural (biophysical) sphere of causation’). The ‘biophysical structures’ or ‘biophysical structures of society ’ mark an area of overlap between culture (the cultural) and nature (the natural), and between these ‘biophysical structures’ and nature a metabolism (or a ‘social metabolism’, with potential of a ‘socio-metabolic transition’), in context of specific ‘metabolic profiles’, occurs (see Fischer-Kowalski 1998; Fischer-Kowalski and Hüttler 1999; Fischer-Kowalski and Haberl 2007; Haberl et al. 2004, pp. 201–202, 204; 2009; see also Hopwood et al. 2005; Kates et al. 2001)” (Carayannis and Campbell 2010, p. 59).

  40. 40.

    More precisely, we will look at the “de facto head of government ”. In the following analysis we then define and discuss this term elaborately and specifically with a greater focus (see again Chapter 6).

  41. 41.

    The flow of argument here is: opposition parties are more clearly oriented toward policy-seeking, whereas government parties are focusing on office-seeking and vote-seeking. The longer government parties govern and reign, the more they become biased in attempting to preserve their power (institutional power base) and hold of government , so that they still can access and benefit from privileges of power and office. Therefore, it appears to be necessary to vote government parties out of office regularly.

  42. 42.

    Compare also with Hypothesis 17 in Sect. 7.2.

  43. 43.

    “The Democracy of Knowledge , as a concept and metaphor, highlights and underscores parallel processes between political pluralism in advanced democracy, and knowledge and innovation heterogeneity and diversity in advanced economy and society . Here, we may observe a hybrid overlapping between the knowledge economy , knowledge society and knowledge democracy ” (Carayannis and Campbell 2012, p. 55).

  44. 44.

    The concepts of the Quadruple and Quintuple Helix innovation systems can also be set in relation to discussions about ideas on “epistemic governance ” (see Campbell and Carayannis 2013a; Carayannis and Campbell 2013; Vadrot 2011).

  45. 45.

    On a review of interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity, see Prainsack et al. (2014) and Wagner et al. (2011). For an interesting application of interdisciplinarity on “Governing Molecules” see Gottweis (1998).

  46. 46.

    See again Campbell (2012, pp. 295–296, 301–302), and Campbell and Carayannis (2013b, Fig. 1).

  47. 47.

    The “basic quintuple-dimensional structure of democracy and quality of democracy ” has been presented in a first premiere fashion to the research communities and public precisely in context of the work developed here (see Fig. 1.7 in Sect. 1.2).

References

  • Ataç, I., & Rosenberger, S. (Eds.). (2013). Politik der Inklusion und Exklusion. Vienna: Vienna University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Barth, T. D. (2011). Die 20 besten Demokratien der Welt. Freiheit – Gleichheit – Demokratiequalität auf einen Blick. Norderstedt: Books on Demand.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Beetham, D. (Ed.). (1994b). Defining and Measuring Democracy. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beetham, D. (2004). Freedom as the Foundation. Journal of Democracy, 15(4), 61–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Brand, U., Brunnengräber, A., & Schrader, L. (2000). Global Governance. Alternative zur neoliberalen Globalisierung. Münster: Westfälisches Dampfboot.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Campbell, D. F. J. (1996). Links- und Rechtsschwingungen in den westlichen Demokratien ab 1945, dissertation, University of Vienna, Vienna.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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#.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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., & 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.

  • 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.

  • Clubb, J. M., Flanigan, W. H., & Zingale, N. H. (1990). Partisan Realignment: Voters, Parties, and Government in American History. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, T. E. (1989). Direct Democracy: The Politics of Initiative, Referendum, and Recall. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Dahl, R. A. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, R. J., & Wattenberg, M. P. (Eds.). (2002). Parties Without Partisans: Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Diamond, L., & Morlino, L. (2004). The Quality of Democracy: An Overview. Journal of Democracy, 15(4), 20–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downs, A. (1957/1985). An Economic Theory of Democracy. Boston: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer-Kowalski, M., & Haberl, H. (Eds.). (2007). Socioecological Transitions and Global Change: Trajectories of Social Metabolism and Land Use. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Freedom House. (2013b). Freedom in the World 2013: Methodology. Washington, DC: Freedom House. http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world-2013/methodology.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerring, J., Bond, P., Barndt, W. T., & Moreno, C. (2005). Democracy and Economic Growth: A Historical Perspective. World Politics, 57(3), 323–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gottweis, H. (1998). Governing Molecules: The Discursive Politics of Genetic Engineering in Europe and the United States. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hadenius, A., & Teorell, J. (2005). Cultural and Economic Prerequisites of Democracy: Reassessing Recent Evidence. Studies in Comparative International Development, 39(4), 87–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Held, D. (2006). Models of Democracy. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D., & Perraton, J. (1999). Global Transformations: Politics, Economics and Culture. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helms, L. (2007). Die Institutionalisierung der liberalen Demokratie. Deutschland im internationalen Vergleich. Frankfurt: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2001). Multi-level Governance and European Integration. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopwood, B., Mellor, M., & O’Brien, G. (2005). Sustainable Development: Mapping Different Approaches. Sustainable Development, 13, 38–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Huntington, S. P. (1991). The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huntington, S. P. (1997). After Twenty Years: The Future of the Third Wave. Journal of Democracy, 8(4), 3–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Inkeles, A. (Ed.). (1993). On Measuring Democracy: Its Consequences and Concomitants. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kates, R. W., et al. (2001). Environment and Development: Sustainability Science. Science, 292(5517), 641–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kesselman, M. (1973). Order or Movement? The Literature of Political Development as Ideology. World Politics, 26(1), 139–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knutsen, C. H. (2010). Measuring Effective Democracy. International Political Science Review, 31(2), 109–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knutsen, C. H. (2012). Democracy and Economic Growth: A Survey of Arguments and Results. International Area Studies Review, 15(4), 393–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lauth, H.-J. (2004). Demokratie und Demokratiemessung. Eine konzeptionelle Grundlegung für den interkulturellen Vergleich. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauth, H.-J. (2010). Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Demokratiemessung. Zeitschrift für Staats- und Europawissenschaften, 8(4), 498–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lauth, H.-J. (2011). Qualitative Ansätze der Demokratiemessung. Zeitschrift für Staats- und Europawissenschaften, 9(1), 49–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lijphart, A. (1984). Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty-One Countries. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lijphart, A. (1999). Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, T. H. (1964). Class, Citizenship, and Social Development: Essays. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFaul, M. (2002). The Fourth Wave of Democracy and Dictatorship: Non-cooperative Transitions in the Post-communist World. World Politics, 54(2), 212–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Merz, M., & P. Sormani (rédacteurs). (2016). The Local Configuration of New Research Fields: On Regional and National Diversity. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • MIPEX/Migrant Integration Policy Index. (2013). Migrant Integration Policy Index. Brussels: British Council and Migration Policy Group. http://www.mipex.eu/.

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Müller, W. C., & Strøm, K. (Eds.). (2000b). Coalition Governments in Western Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munck, G. L. (2009). Measuring Democracy: A Bridge Between Scholarship and Politics. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munck, G. L., & Verkuilen, J. (2002). Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy: Evaluating Alternative Indices. Comparative Political Studies, 35(1), 5–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, M. (2000). Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell, G. (2004a). Why the Rule of Law Matters. Journal of Democracy, 15(4), 32–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Paslack, R. (1991). Urgeschichte der Selbstorganisation. Zur Archäologie eines wissenschaftlichen Paradigmas. Wiesbaden: Vieweg.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Pickel, S., & Pickel, G. (2006). Politische Kultur- und Demokratieforschung. Grundbegriffe, Theorie, Methoden. Eine Einführung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poier, K. (2001). Minderheitenfreundliches Mehrheitswahlrecht. Rechts- und politikwissenschaftliche Überlegungen zu Fragen des Wahlrechts und der Wahlsystematik. Vienna: Böhlau.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prainsack, B., Schicktanz, S., & Werner-Felmayer, G. (2014). Genetics as Social Practice: Transdisciplinary Views on Science and Culture. Farnham: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Rhodes, R. A. W. (1996). The New Governance: Governing Without Government. Political Studies, XLIV, 652–667. http://law.hku.hk/gl/rhodes.pdf.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberger, S. (Ed.). (2010). Asylpolitik in Österreich. Unterbringung im Fokus. Vienna: Facultas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothstein, B., & Teorell, J. (2008). What Is Quality of Government? A Theory of Impartial Government Institutions. Governance, 21(2), 165–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothstein, B., & Uslaner, E. M. (2005). All for All: Equality, Corruption, and Social Trust. World Politics, 58(1), 41–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saward, M. (Ed.). (2000). Democratic Innovation: Deliberation, Representation and Association. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schedler, A. (2006). Electoral Authoritarianism: The Dynamics of Unfree Competition. Boulder, CO: L. Rienner Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlesinger, A. M., Jr. (1986). The Cycles of American History. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Schmidt, M. G. (2010). Demokratietheorien. Eine Einführung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Strøm, K., Müller, W. C., & Bergman, T. (Eds.). (2004). Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department for Continuing Education Research and Educational Management, Center for Educational Management and Higher Education Development, Danube University Krems, Krems an der Donau, Austria

    David F. J. Campbell

  2. Department of Political Science, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    David F. J. Campbell

  3. University of Applied Arts Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    David F. J. Campbell

  4. Faculty for Interdisciplinary Studies (iff), Department of Science Communication and Higher Education Research (WIHO), Alpen-Adria-Universität Klagenfurt, Vienna, Austria

    David F. J. Campbell

Authors
  1. David F. J. Campbell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Campbell, D.F.J. (2019). Introduction: How to Conceptualize Democracy, Quality of Democracy in Global Comparison and Democracy as Innovation Enabler. In: Global Quality of Democracy as Innovation Enabler. Palgrave Studies in Democracy, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship for Growth. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72529-1_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation