Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship

2013 Edition
| Editors: Elias G. Carayannis

Quality of Democracy and Innovation

Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3858-8_509

Synonyms

The Conceptual Definition of Democracy and of the Quality of Democracy

How can democracy and the quality of democracy be conceptualized? Such a (theoretically justified) conceptualization is necessary in order for democracy and the quality of democracy to be subjected to a democracy measurement, whereby democracy measurement, in this case, can be examined along the lines of conceptually defining democracy (thus democracy measurement is also to be utilized to improve the theory of democracy) (see Campbell 2012). Hans-Joachim Lauth ( 2004, pp....
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Campbell DFJ. The basic concept for the democracy ranking of the quality of democracy. Vienna: Democracy Ranking (2008). http://www.democracyranking.org/downloads/basic_concept_democracy_ranking_2008_A4.pdf. Accessed 1 Dec 2012.
  2. Campbell DFJ. Die österreichische Demokratiequalität in Perspektive. In Helms L, Wineroither DM, editors. Die österreichische Demokratie im Vergleich. Baden-Baden: Nomos; 2012.Google Scholar
  3. Campbell DFJ, Sükösd M, editors. Feasibility study for a quality ranking of democracies. Vienna: Global Democracy Award (2002). http://www.democracyranking.org/downloads/feasibility_study-a4-e-01.pdf. Accessed 1 Dec 2012.
  4. Campbell DFJ, Barth TD. Wie können Demokratie und Demokratiequalität gemessen werden? Modelle, Demokratie-Indices und Länderbeispiele im globalen Vergleich. SWS-Rundschau. 2009;49(2):208–33. http://www.sws-rundschau.at/archiv/SWS_2009_2_Campbell.pdf and http://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/View/?resid=12471.
  5. Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ. “Mode 3” and “Quadruple Helix”: toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. Int J Technol Manag. 2009;46(3/4):201–34. http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=27&year=2009&vol=46&issue=3/4 and http://www.inderscience.com/search/index.php?action=record&rec_id=23374&prevQuery=&ps=10&m=or.
  6. Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ. 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. Int J Soc Ecol Sustain Dev. 2010;1(1):41–69. http://www.igi-global.com/bookstore/article.aspx?titleid=41959.
  7. Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ. 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. J Knowl Econ. 2011;2(3):327–72. http://www.springerlink.com/content/d1lr223321305579/.
  8. Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ. Mode 3 knowledge production in quadruple helix innovation systems. 21st-century democracy, innovation, and entrepreneurship for development, Springer briefs in business, vol. 7. New York: Springer; 2012. http://www.springer.com/business+%26+management/book/978-1-4614-2061-3.
  9. Carayannis EG, Barth TD, Campbell DFJ. The quintuple helix innovation model: global warming as a challenge and driver for innovation. J Innov Entrep. 2012;1(1):1–12. http://www.innovation-entrepreneurship.com/content/pdf/2192-5372-1-2.pdf.
  10. Dahl RA. Polyarchy. Participation and opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1971.Google Scholar
  11. Danilda I, Lindberg M, Torstensson B-M. Women Resource Centres. A quattro helix innovation system on the European agenda (2009). Paper http://www.hss09.se/own_documents/Papers/3-11%20-%20Danilda%20Lindberg%20&%20Torstensson%20-%20paper.pdf. Accessed 1 Dec 2012.
  12. Diamond L, Morlino L. The quality of democracy. An overview. J Democr. 2004;15(4):20–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Diamond L, Morlino L, editors. Assessing the quality of democracy. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press; 2005.Google Scholar
  14. Downs A. An economic theory of democracy. Boston: Addison-Wesley; 1957.Google Scholar
  15. Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L. The dynamics of innovation: from national systems and “Mode 2” to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Res Policy. 2000;29:109–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. European Commission. The world in 2025. Rising Asia and socio-ecological transition. Brussels: European Commission (2009). http://ec.europa.eu/research/social-sciences/pdf/the-world-in-2025-report_en.pdf. Accessed 1 Dec 2012.
  17. Fischer-Kowalski M, Haberl H, editors. Socioecological transitions and global change. Trajectories of social metabolism and land use. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; 2007.Google Scholar
  18. Freedom House. Freedom in the world 2011. Methodology. Washington, DC: Freedom House (2011a). http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=351&ana_page=379&year=2011. Accessed 1 Dec 2012.
  19. Freedom House. Freedom in the world – population trends. Washington, DC: Freedom House (2011b). http://www.freedomhouse.org/images/File/fiw/historical/PopulationTrendsFIW1980-2011.pdf. Accessed 1 Dec 2012.
  20. Harding S, Phillips D, Fogarty M. Contrasting values in Western Europe. Unity, diversity and change, Studies in the contemporary values of modern society. London: Macmillan; 1986.Google Scholar
  21. Helms L. Die Institutionalisierung der liberalen Demokratie. Deutschland im internationalen Vergleich. Frankfurt: Campus; 2007.Google Scholar
  22. Lauth H-J. Demokratie und Demokratiemessung. Eine konzeptionelle Grundlegung für den interkulturellen Vergleich. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften; 2004.Google Scholar
  23. Marshall TH. Class, citizenship, and social development. Essays. Garden City: Doubleday; 1964.Google Scholar
  24. Munck GL. Measuring democracy. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press; 2009.Google Scholar
  25. O’Donnell G. Human development, human rights, and democracy. In: O’Donnell G, Vargas Cullell J, Iazzetta OM, editors. The quality of democracy. Theory and applications. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press; 2004a. p. 9–92.Google Scholar
  26. O’Donnell G. Why the rule of law matters. J Democr. 2004b;15(4):32–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Przeworski A, Alvarez ME, Antonio Cheibub J, Limongi F. Democracy and development. Political institutions and well-being in the world, 1950–1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003.Google Scholar
  28. Saward M, editor. Democratic innovation. Deliberation, representation and association. London: Routledge; 2000.Google Scholar
  29. Sodaro MJ. Comparative politics. A global introduction. Boston: Mc Graw Hill; 2004.Google Scholar
  30. Stoiber M. Die Qualität von Demokratien im Vergleich Zur Bedeutung des Kontextes in der empirisch vergleichenden Demokratietheorie. Nomos: Baden-Baden; 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. UNDP/United Nations Development Program. Human development report 2000. Human rights and human development. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000. http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2000/.
  32. Von Hippel E. Democratizing innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2005.Google Scholar
  33. Winiwarter V, Knoll M. Umweltgeschichte. Cologne: Böhlau; 2007.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media LLC 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty for Interdisciplinary Studies (IFF), Institute of Science Communication and Higher Education ResearchAlpen–Adria–University KlagenfurtViennaAustria
  2. 2.University of Applied ArtsViennaAustria
  3. 3.Department of Information Systems & Technology Management, School of BusinessThe George Washington UniversityWashingtonUSA