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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
PPP stands for: Purchasing Power Parity.
- 2.
Non-political sustainable development averages (means) the following indicators with specific weights (see also above): life expectancy at birth (total years), school enrollment tertiary (% gross), Gini Index (issued by the World Bank), Global Gender Gap Index (issued by the World Economic Forum), lower CO2 emission (metric tons per capita), and GDP per capita in PPP (constant 2011 international $).
- 3.
Those European countries, ranking on quality of democracy higher than the USA in 2016, are in the order of sequence (see Table A.2.7 in Appendix 2): Norway, Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, Belgium, Germany, and Austria. Non-European countries, ranking higher than the USA (again in 2016), are: Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
- 4.
In an earlier analysis, referring only to the years 2002–2008 and where tertiary education was compensated by the indicator of internet users (per 100 people), the performance profile of Japan behaved differently. Concerning the redesigned HDI, Japan scored (behind the leading USA and Nordic countries ) better than the EU (EU15 and EU17). However, concerning the broader defined “Comprehensive sustainable development” or the sustainable development without political freedom , Japan scored in balance with the EU (but again behind the Nordic countries and the USA) (Campbell 2013).
- 5.
Income equality or Gini Index (issued by the World Bank) and gender equality , based on the Global Gender Gap Index of the World Economic Forum, we discussed already earlier (see Figs. 3.3 and 3.4). Therefore, we will not repeat (here) the discussion of these non-political indicators of sustainable development .
- 6.
The median implies that half of the population or of a sampled score higher than the median, whereas the other half scores lower. So the median really places in the middle of a distribution. For a more formal definition of the median, see on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median; for a definition of the mean (arithmetic mean), see again on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean.
- 7.
“Net” would indicate here that only the percentage enrollment of specific (predefined) age cohorts would be indicated. Since, however, tertiary education is not necessarily limited to specific age cohorts, this indicators is only being reported as “gross” in context of the World Development Indicators (World Bank 2011). In fact, the idea and concept of lifelong learning (LLL) emphasizes that there is a need or at least potential of spreading forms of tertiary education along the whole life spectrum, thus addressing very different age cohorts. Here, tertiary education and lifelong learning overlap with academic or tertiary continuing education . These appear to be trends for the advanced economies and societies, but could also apply to emerging economies .
- 8.
Scores for the Nordic countries even peaked in the mid-2000s. Scores for the USA peaked in the early 2010s.
- 9.
See again Table A.2.7 in Appendix.
- 10.
See on that chronology: https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/history_en.
- 11.
See again Appendix Table A.2.7.
- 12.
Only in 2002, the Liberal Welfare Regimes rank higher on tertiary education than the Nordic countries . In all of the following years (2003–2008), the Nordic countries rank here higher.
- 13.
Number-one-ranking country (in 2008) for this indicator was Cuba. We already discussed the pros and cons or plausibility of that circumstance or datum attribute (World Bank 2018).
- 14.
In fact, the (Continental European ) Conservative Welfare Regimes are partially in a defensive and lower-ranking position against the Liberal Welfare Regimes and USA.
References
Biegelbauer, Peter. (2013). Wie lernt Politik? Lernen aus Erfahrung in Politik und Verwaltung. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
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.
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).
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.
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/.
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.
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.
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/.
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Fischer-Kowalski, M., & Haberl, H. (Eds.). (2007). Socioecological Transitions and Global Change: Trajectories of Social Metabolism and Land Use. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
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.
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/.
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/.
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/.
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, 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.
Wilkinson, R. G., & Pickett, K. (2010). The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone. London: Penguin Books.
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Campbell, D.F.J. (2019). Comparative Empirical Analysis of the OECD Countries: Freedom, Equality and Sustainable Development in the OECD Countries (2002–2016). 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_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72529-1_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-72528-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-72529-1
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)