Conclusion: Summary and Formulation of Hypotheses for Further Research on Democracy, Quality of Democracy in Global Comparison and Democracy as Innovation Enabler

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


Arguments can be developed that the higher the degrees of economic development are, then the more likely it is that advanced economic development also requires the development of a democracy. In that respect, we can expect certain associations (or also a coevolution) between quality of democracy, knowledge democracy, and knowledge economy. So there is also a type of plausibility for the assertion of “democracy as innovation enabler.” Here, political pluralism and a heterogeneity and diversity of different knowledge and innovation modes should mutually support and reinforce each other. This can point in favor of a coevolution of democracy and a “democracy of knowledge” and of “democracy as innovation enabler”? The diversity (not only political diversity and political pluralism, but also knowledge and innovation diversity) within democracies may feed effectively into the next-generation creations of knowledge production and innovation system evolution, which will be necessary for progress and further advances of knowledge society, knowledge economy, and knowledge democracy in a global format


Democracy Democracy as innovation enabler Quality of democracy 


  1. Beetham, D. (Ed.). (1994). Defining and Measuring Democracy. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Blunden, J., Arndt, D. S., & Hartfield, G. (Eds.). (2018). State of the Climate in 2017. Special Supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 99(8), Si–S332. and Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Campbell, D. F. J. (1996). Links- und Rechtsschwingungen in den westlichen Demokratien ab 1945. Dissertation, University of Vienna, Vienna.Google Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Campbell, D. F. J. (2008). The Basic Concept for the Democracy Ranking of the Quality of Democracy. Vienna: Democracy Ranking. and
  8. Campbell, D. F. J. (2010). Key Findings (Summary Abstract) of the Democracy Ranking 2010 and the Democracy Improvement Ranking 2010. Vienna: Democracy Ranking.
  9. 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. Scholar
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. Campbell, D. F. J., & Carayannis, E. G. (2013). Quality of Democracy and Innovation. In E. G. Carayannis, I. N. Dubina, N. Seel, D. F. J. Campbell, & D. Uzunidis (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship (pp. 1527–1534). New York: Springer. Scholar
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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.
  17. 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, I. N. Dubina, N. Seel, D. F. J. Campbell, & D. Uzunidis (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship (pp. 1293–1300). New York: Springer. Scholar
  18. 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). and
  19. 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. Scholar
  20. Crouch, C. (2010). Post-democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  21. Cunningham, F. (2002). Theories of Democracy: A Critical Introduction. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Democracy Barometer. (2013). Democracy Barometer at a Glance. Aarau: Democracy Barometer.
  23. 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
  24. European Commission. (2009). The World in 2025: Rising Asia and Socio-Ecological Transition. Brussels: European Commission.
  25. 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
  26. Fischer-Kowalski, M., & Haberl, H. (Eds.). (2007). Socioecological Transitions and Global Change: Trajectories of Social Metabolism and Land Use. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Fraser Institute. (2009). Summary Index of the Economic Freedom in the World: 2009 Data Set. Vancouver, BC: The Fraser Institute. and
  29. Freedom House. (2013a). Freedom in the World: Aggregate Scores of Political Rights and Civil Liberties, 2003–2013. Washington, DC: Freedom House.
  30. Freedom House. (2013b). Freedom in the World 2013. Methodology. Washington, DC: Freedom House (
  31. Freedom House. (2013c). Freedom of the Press. Scores and Status Date 1980–2013. Washington, DC: Freedom House.
  32. Freedom House. (2018). Freedom in the World: Aggregate and Subcategory Scores. Washington, DC: Freedom House.
  33. Fukuyama, F. (1989). The End of History? The National Interest (Summer 1989), 3–18.
  34. Fukuyama, F. (1992). The End of History and the Last Man. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  35. Held, D. (2006). Models of Democracy. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Heritage Foundation. (2013). 2013 Index of Economic Freedom. Washington, DC: Heritage Foundation. and
  37. Huntington, S. P. (1991). The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
  38. Huntington, S. P. (1997). After Twenty Years: The Future of the Third Wave. Journal of Democracy, 8(4), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.
  40. Kagan, R. (2003). Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  41. Krastev, I., & Holmes, S. (2012). Putinism Under Siege: An Autopsy of Managed Democracy. Journal of Democracy, 23(3), 33–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lauth, H.-J. (2004). Demokratie und Demokratiemessung. Eine konzeptionelle Grundlegung für den interkulturellen Vergleich. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  43. Levine, D. H., & Molina, J. E. (2011). The Quality of Democracy in Latin America. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
  44. Lord, C. (2004). A Democratic Audit of the European Union. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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
  46. Meyer, T. (2009). Was ist Demokratie? Eine discursive Einführung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  47. Obama, B. (2017, January 9). The Irreversible Momentum of Clean Energy. Science, Policy Forum. and Scholar
  48. O’Donnell, G. (2004). 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
  49. Piketty, T. (2015). The Economics of Inequality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Roberts, A. L. (2010). The Quality of Democracy in Eastern Europe: Public Preferences and Policy Reforms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  51. Rifkin, J. (2004). The European Dream: How Europe’s Vision of the Future Is Quietly Eclipsing the American Dream. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  52. Schedler, A. (2006). Electoral Authoritarianism: The Dynamics of Unfree Competition. Boulder, CO: L. Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
  53. Schmidt, M. G. (2010). Demokratietheorien. Eine Einführung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Segert, D., & Machos, C. (1995). Parteien in Osteuropa. Kontext und Akteure. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sodaro, M. J. (2004). Comparative Politics: A Global Introduction. With Contributions by D. W. Collinwood, B. J. Dickson, J. L. Klesner, and T. D. Sisk (2nd ed.). New York: Mc Graw Hill.Google Scholar
  56. Steffen, W., Rockström, J., Richardson, K., Lenton, T. M., Folke, C., Liverman, D., Summerhayes, C. P., Barnosky, A. D., Cornell, S. E., Crucifix, M., Donges, J. F., Fetzer, I., Lade, S. J., Scheffer, M., Winkelmann, R., Schellnhuber, H. J. (2018, August 9). Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS), 1–8. and and Scholar
  57. Veld, R. J. in´t. (2010a). Knowledge Democracy: Consequences for Science, Politics, and Media. Heidelberg: Springer.
  58. 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.
  59. Wegren, S. K., & Konitzer, A. (2008). Prospects for Managed Democracy in Russia. Europe-Asia Studies, 59(6), 1025–1047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wilkinson, R. G., & Pickett, K. (2010). The Spirit Level: Why Equality Is Better for Everyone. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  61. Winslow, M. (2010). Environmental Quality, Economic Growth, and Democracy. An Empirical and Theoretical Examination of the Linkages. Saarbruck (Saarbrücken): Lambert Academic Publishing.Google Scholar
  62. World Bank. (2018). World Development Indicators (Web-based Online Database). Washington, DC: World Bank.
  63. World Inequality Database. (2018a). World Inequality Database. WID.
  64. World Inequality Database. (2018b). World Inequality Report 2018. WID.
  65. World Meteorological Organization. (2017, October 30). The Sate 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