Comparative Empirical Analysis of Global Trends of the OECD and Non-OECD Countries and of the Whole World: Freedom, Equality and Sustainable Development in the World (2002–2016)

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


There is a tendency that in world context and averaged as world means the non-political indicators grow (grew) faster and express a more dynamic profile of progress, progressing, and advancement than the political indicators. For example, the redesigned Human Development Index as well as non-political sustainable development outperforms the comprehensive sustainable development (which includes political freedom). Also, economic freedom progresses faster than political freedom. Furthermore, the more narrowly defined (in terms of used and integrated indicators) redesigned Human Development Index expanded faster than the more broadly defined non-political sustainable development. During the fifteen-year period of 2002–2016, the whole world improved its score levels across a broad range, but the whole world (non-OECD countries) improved faster than the OECD countries. In that respect, it has become easier for the non-OECD countries (or for some of the non-OECD countries) to catch up with the OECD countries and to make the gap smaller. Of course, it should be critically mentioned that the gap of GDP per capita has not become smaller between the OECD countries and the whole world (non-OECD countries), but even has widened to some degrees. The gap between the OECD and the means (averages) for the whole world is the largest in the domain of the following indicators: political freedom, tertiary education (tertiary gross school enrollment), comprehensive sustainable development, GDP per capita (PPP, in constant 2011 international $), and for the redesigned Human Development Index. The gap between the OECD and the world average is the smallest for: gender equality and income equality.


Development Growth Non-OECD OECD Sustainable development World 


  1. 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
  2. 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. Scholar
  3. 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
  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. (2014). Developed Democracies Versus Emerging Autocracies: Arts, Democracy, and Innovation in Quadruple Helix Innovation Systems. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 3, 12.
  6. European Commission. (2009). The World in 2025: Rising Asia and Socio-ecological Transition. Brussels: European Commission.
  7. 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
  8. Fischer-Kowalski, M., & Haberl, H. (Eds.). (2007). Socioecological Transitions and Global Change: Trajectories of Social Metabolism and Land Use. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Heinisch, R., Holtz-Bacha, C., & Mazzoleni, O. (Eds.). (2017). Political Populism: A Handbook. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  11. Piketty, T. (2015). The Economics of Inequality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Vadrot, A. B. M. (2014). The Politics of Knowledge and Global Biodiversity. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Veld, R. J. in´t. (2010a). Knowledge Democracy: Consequences for Science, Politics, and Media. Heidelberg: Springer.
  14. 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.
  15. Wilkinson, R. G., & Pickett, K. (2010). The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  16. Wineroither, D. M., & Kitschelt, H. (2017). Die Entwicklung des Parteienwettbewerbs in Österreich im internationalen Vergleich, 251–285. In L. Helms & D. M. Wineroither (Eds.), Die österreichische Demokratie im Vergleich. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  17. World Bank. (2018). World Development Indicators (Web-Based Online Database). Washington, DC: World Bank.
  18. World Inequality Database. (2018a). World Inequality Database. WID.
  19. World Inequality Database. (2018b). World Inequality Report 2018. WID
  20. World Meteorological Organization. (2017, October 30). The State of Greenhouse Gases in the Atmosphere Based on Global Observations Through 2016. WMO Greenhouse Gas Bulletin 13.

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