Advertisement

Comparative Empirical Analysis of the OECD Countries: Freedom, Equality and Sustainable Development in the OECD Countries (2002–2016)

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

Abstract

With regard to quality of democracy, neither the USA nor the European Union leads clearly, when being compared with each other on empirical grounds. In empirical terms, neither the USA nor the European Union expresses or demonstrates a clear lead in quality of democracy. In political freedom, the EU15 leads marginally over the USA, but the USA leads over EU28. In economic freedom, the USA is generally leading. In gender equality, the EU15 again leads marginally over the USA, but the USA again leads (marginally) over the EU28. In income equality, however, the European Unions (EU15 and EU28) lies considerably ahead of the USA. Are the two sub-dimensions of freedom being aggregated (numerically) to one dimension of freedom, and is the same done for the two sub-dimensions of equality, creating by this one aggregated (numerical) dimension of equality, then we experience a lead of the USA in freedom, but a lead of EU15 and EU28 in equality. Ideologies and ideological controversies should be here more sensitive for empirical evidence in the coming debates. The Nordic countries mark an important reference point for discourse on development and quality of democracy for the USA, but in the European Union as well. In empirical terms, the Nordic countries represent a world region that achieved the highest level of quality of democracy in contemporary context. The Nordic lead not only does focus on one dimension of democracy measurement, but also crosscuts and cross-connects several and by character very different dimensions (and sub-dimensions), which qualifies this Nordic lead as to be sustainable, and to a certain extent also as solid. In empirical terms, the Nordic countries represent a global benchmark for quality of democracy for the whole world, demonstrating and verifying, which levels of quality of democracy are not only theoretically, but actually empirically (and by this in reality) possible.

Keywords

Development Economic freedom EU15 EU28 European Union Gender equality Growth Income equality Japan OECD Political freedom Sustainable development United States World 

References

  1. Biegelbauer, Peter. (2013). Wie lernt Politik? Lernen aus Erfahrung in Politik und Verwaltung. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Google Scholar
  2. Campbell, D. F. J. (1994). European Nation-State Under Pressure: National Fragmentation or the Evolution of Suprastate Structures? Cybernetics and Systems: An International Journal, 25(6), 879–909. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=g770888219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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. Habilitationsschrift. Vienna: University of Vienna (Habilitationsschrift).Google Scholar
  4. 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
  5. 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/.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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: Springer. http://www.springer.com/business+%26+management/book/978–1-4614-2061-3.
  7. Carayannis, E. G., & Kaloudis, A. (2010). A Time for Action and a Time to Lead: Democratic Capitalism and a New “New Deal” for the US and the World in the Twenty-First Century. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 1(1), 4–17. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13132-009-0002-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dubina, I. N., Carayannis, E. G., Campbell, D. F. J. (2012). Creativity Economy and a Crisis of the Economy? Coevolution of Knowledge, Innovation, and Creativity, and of the Knowledge Economy and Knowledge Society. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 3(1), 1–24. http://www.springerlink.com/content/t5j8l12136h526h5/.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Fischer-Kowalski, M., & Haberl, H. (Eds.). (2007). Socioecological Transitions and Global Change: Trajectories of Social Metabolism and Land Use. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  11. Sodaro, M. J. (2004). Comparative Politics: A Global Introduction (2nd ed.). With contributions by D. W. Collinwood, B. J. Dickson, J. L. Klesner, & T. D. Sisk. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  12. UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). (2007). Human Development Report 2007/2008. Fighting Climate Change: Human Solidarity in a Divided World. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2007-8/.
  13. UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). (2009). Human Development Report 2009. Overcoming Barriers: Human Mobility and Development. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2009/.
  14. UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). (2010). Human Development Report 2010. 20th Anniversary Edition. The Real Wealth of Nations: Pathways to Human Development. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2010/.
  15. 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.
  16. Veld, R. J. in´t. (2010b). Towards Knowledge Democracy, 1–11. In R. J. in´t Veld (Ed.), Knowledge Democracy: Consequences for Science, Politics, and Media. Heidelberg: Springer. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-11381-9_1.
  17. Wilkinson, R. G., & Pickett, K. (2010). The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  18. World Bank. (2011). World Development Indicators (Web-based Online Database). Washington, DC: World Bank. http://databank.worldbank.org/ddp/home.do?Step=12&id=4&CNO=2.
  19. World Bank. (2018). World Development Indicators (Web-based Online Database). Washington, DC: World Bank. http://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=world-development-indicators&preview=on.

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