Abstract
The analytical research question of this chapter is threefold: (1) To develop (and to prototype) a conceptual framework of analysis for a global comparison of quality of democracy. This framework also references to the concept of the “Quadruple Helix innovation systems” (created by Carayannis and Campbell and first published in 2009). (2) The same conceptual framework is being used and tested for comparing and measuring empirically quality of democracy in the different OECD and European Union (EU27) member countries. (3) Finally (and based on the international comparison), different propositions and recommendations for an improvement of quality of democracy reform in Austria are being developed and suggested. By this, Austrian democracy qualifies as a case study for democracy enhancement. In theoretical and conceptual terms, we refer to a Quadruple-dimensional structure, also a Quadruple Helix structure (a “Model of Quadruple Helix Structures”) of the four basic (conceptual) dimensions of freedom, equality, control, and sustainable development for explaining and comparing democracy and quality of democracy. Put in summary, we may conclude for the United States: the comparative strength of quality of democracy in the United States focuses on the dimension of freedom. The comparative weakness of the quality of democracy in the United States lies in the dimension of equality, most importantly income equality. Quadruple Helix refers here to at least two crucial perspectives: (1) the unfolding of an innovative knowledge economy also requires (at least in a longer perspective) the unfolding of a knowledge democracy and (2) knowledge and innovation are being defined as key for sustainable development and for the further evolution of quality of democracy. How to innovate (and reinvent) knowledge democracy? There is a potential that democracy discourses and innovation discourses advance in a next-step and two-way mutual cross-reference. The architectures of Quadruple Helix (and Quintuple Helix) innovation systems demand and require the formation of a democracy, implicating that quality of democracy provides for a support and encouragement of innovation and innovation systems, so that quality of democracy and progress of innovation mutually “Cross Helix” in a connecting and amplifying mode and manner. This relates research on quality of democracy to research on innovation (innovation systems) and the knowledge economy. “Cyber-democracy” receives here a new and important meaning.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Barth, T. D. (2010). Konzeption, Messung und Rating der Demokratiequalität. Brasilien, Südafrika, Australien und die Russische Föderation 1997–2006. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.
Barth, T. D. (2011). Die 20 besten Demokratien der Welt. Freiheit – Gleichheit – Demokratiequalität auf einen Blick. Norderstedt: Books on Demand.
Bast, G., Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (Eds.). (2015). Arts, research, innovation and society. New York: Springer. http://www.springer.com/business+%26+management/technology+management/book/978-3-319-09908-8.
Beck, E. R. A., & Schaller, C. (2003). Zur Qualität der britischen und österreichischen Demokratie. Vienna: Böhlau.
Beetham, D. (1994). Key principles and indices for a democratic audit. In D. Beetham (Ed.), Defining and measuring democracy (pp. 25–43). London: Sage.
Beetham, D. (2004). Freedom as the foundation. Journal of Democracy, 15(4), 61–75.
Beetham, D., Byrne, I., Ngan, P., & Weir, S. (2002). Democracy under Blair. A democratic audit of the United Kingdom. London: Politico’s Publishing.
Bühlmann, M., Merkel, W., Müller, L., & Weßels, B. (2011). The democracy barometer: A new instrument to measure the quality of democracy and its potential for comparative research. European Political Science. https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2011.46. http://www.palgrave-journals.com/eps/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/eps201146a.html.
Campbell, D. F. J. (2002). Zur Demokratiequalität von politischem Wechsel, Wettbewerb und politischem System in Österreich. In D. F. J. Campbell & C. Schaller (Eds.), Demokratiequalität in Österreich (pp. 19–46). Opladen: Leske + Budrich. http://www.oegpw.at/sek_agora/publikationen.htm and http://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/View/?resid=12473.
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. http://www.sws-rundschau.at/archiv/SWS_2007_4_campbell.pdf and http://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/View/?resid=12472&lang=de.
Campbell, D. F. J. (2008). The basic concept for the democracy ranking of the quality of democracy. Vienna: Democracy Ranking. http://www.democracyranking.org/downloads/basic_concept_democracy_ranking_2008_A4.pdf.
Campbell, D. F. J. (2011). Key findings (summary abstract) of the democracy ranking 2011 and of the democracy improvement ranking 2011. Vienna: Democracy Ranking. http://www.democracyranking.org/downloads/Key-findings_Democracy-Ranking_2011_en-A4.pdf.
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.
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. Habilitation treatise (“Habilitationsschrift”). Vienna: University of Vienna.
Campbell, D. F. J. (2015a). Reformvorschläge für Österreichs Demokratie: Diskussionspunkte zur Demokratiequalität [Reform proposal for Austrian democracy: Discussion points on quality of democracy]. In T. Öhlinger & K. Poier (Eds.), Direkte Demokratie und Parlamentarismus. Wie kommen wir zu den besten Entscheidungen? [Direct democracy and parliamentarism. How do we make the best decisions?] (pp. 43–56). Vienna: Böhlau. http://www.amazon.de/Direkte-Demokratie-Parlamentarismus-kommen-Entscheidungen/dp/3205796659/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1423650423&sr=8-1&keywords=klaus+poier.
Campbell, D. F. J. (2015b). Verbesserungsmöglichkeiten und Reformvorschläge für Demokratiequalität in Österreich. [Possibilities for improving and reforming quality of democracy in Austria]. SWS-Rundschau [Social Scientific Review], 55(2), 219–239. ISSN: 1013-1469. http://www.sws-rundschau.at/html/archiv_abstract.php?language=de&id=328&heft=82.
Campbell, D. F. J. (2017). 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. 365–393). Baden-Baden: Nomos. https://www.amazon.de/%C3%B6sterreichische-Demokratie-Vergleich-Politik-Kleineren/dp/384873124X/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1504590230&sr=1-3&keywords=die+%C3%B6sterreichische+demokratie+im+vergleich.
Campbell, D. F. J., & Barth, T. D. (2009). Wie können Demokratie und Demokratiequalität gemessen werden? Modelle, Demokratie-Indices und Länderbeispiele im globalen Vergleich. SWS-Rundschau, 49(2), 208–233. http://www.sws-rundschau.at/archiv/SWS_2009_2_Campbell.pdf and http://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/View/?resid=12471.
Campbell, D. F. J., & Carayannis, E. G. (2013a). 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. http://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-1-4614-3858-8_509#.
Campbell, D. F. J., & Carayannis, E. G. (2013b). Epistemic governance in higher education. Quality enhancement of universities for development (SpringerBriefs in Business). New York: Springer. http://www.springer.com/business+%26+management/organization/book/978-1-4614-4417-6.
Campbell, D. F. J., & Carayannis, E. G. (2014). Explaining and comparing quality of democracy in quadruple helix structures: The quality of democracy in the United States and in Austria, challenges and opportunities for development. In E. G. Carayannis, D. F. J. Campbell, & M. P. Efthymiopoulos (Eds.), Cyber-development, cyber-democracy and cyber-defense. Challenges, opportunities and implications for theory, policy and practice (pp. 117–148). New York: Springer. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4939-1028-1_4 and http://www.springer.com/de/book/9781493910274.
Campbell, D. F. J., & Carayannis, E. G. (2016). The academic firm: A new design and redesign proposition for entrepreneurship in innovation-driven knowledge economy. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 5(12), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-016-0040-1. http://innovation-entrepreneurship.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s13731-016-0040-1.
Campbell, D. F. J., & Schaller, C. (Eds.). (2002). Demokratiequalität in Österreich. Zustand und Entwicklungsperspektiven. Opladen: Leske + Budrich. http://www.oegpw.at/sek_agora/publikationen.htm und http://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/View/?resid=12473.
Campbell, D. F. J., & Sükösd, M. (Eds.). (2002). Feasibility study for a quality ranking of democracies. Vienna: Global Democracy Award. http://www.democracyranking.org/downloads/feasibility_study-a4-e-01.pdf.
Campbell, D. F. J., Liebhart, K., Martinsen, R., Schaller, C., & Schedler, A. (Eds.). (1996). Die Qualität der österreichischen Demokratie. Versuche einer Annäherung. Vienna: Manz.
Campbell, D. F. J., Carayannis, E. G., Barth, T. D., & Campbell, G. S. (2013). Measuring democracy and the quality of democracy in a world-wide approach: Models and indices of democracy and the new findings of the “Democracy Ranking”. International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development, 4(1), 1–16. http://www.igi-global.com/article/measuring-democracy-quality-democracy-world/77344.
Campbell, D. F. J., Carayannis, E. G., & Rehman, S. S. (2015). Quadruple helix structures of quality of democracy in innovation systems: The USA, OECD countries, and EU member countries in global comparison. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 6(3), 467–493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-015-0246-7.
Campbell, D. F. J., Pölzlbauer, P., & Barth, T. D. (2017). Democracy ranking 2016. Vienna: Democracy Ranking Organization. http://democracyranking.org/wordpress/2016-full-dataset/.
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. 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.
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. http://www.igi-global.com/bookstore/article.aspx?titleid=41959.
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, Vol. 7). New York: Springer. http://www.springer.com/business+%26+management/book/978-1-4614-2061-3 and http://www.springer.com/cda/content/document/cda_downloaddocument/9781461420613-c1.pdf?SGWID=0-0-45-1263639-p174250662.
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. http://www.innovation-entrepreneurship.com/content/pdf/s13731-014-0012-2.pdf and http://www.innovation-entrepreneurship.com/content/3/1/12.
Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2015). Art and artistic research in quadruple and quintuple helix innovation systems. In G. Bast, E. G. Carayannis, & D. F. J. Campbell (Eds.), Arts, research, innovation and society (pp. 29–51). New York: Springer. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-09909-5_3.
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. http://www.innovation-entrepreneurship.com/content/pdf/2192-5372-1-2.pdf.
Carayannis, E. G., Campbell, D. F. J., & Efthymiopoulos, M. P. (Eds.). (2018). Handbook of cyber-development, cyber-democracy, and cyber-defense. New York: Springer. http://www.springer.com/economics/policy/book/978-3-319-09068-9 and https://link.springer.com/referencework/10.1007/978-3-319-06091-0.
Cullell, J. V. (2004). Democracy and the quality of democracy. Empirical findings and methodological and theoretical issues drawn from the citizen audit of the quality of democracy in Costa Rica. In G. O’Donnell, J. V. Cullell, & O. M. Iazzetta (Eds.), The quality of democracy. Theory and applications (pp. 93–162). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Cunningham, F. (2002). Theories of democracy. London: Routledge.
Dahl, R. A. (1971). Polyarchy. Participation and opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Danilda, I., Lindberg, M., & Torstensson, B.-M. (2009). Women resource centres. A Quattro Helix innovation system on the European Agenda. Paper http://www.hss09.se/own_documents/Papers/3-11%20-%20Danilda%20Lindberg%20&%20Torstensson%20-%20paper.pdf.
Democracy Ranking. (2011). Democracy ranking 2011 and the democracy improvement ranking 2011. Vienna: Democracy Ranking. http://www.democracyranking.org/en/ranking.htm.
Diamond, L., & Morlino, L. (2004). The quality of democracy. An overview. Journal of Democracy, 15(4), 20–31.
Diamond, L., & Morlino, L. (2005). Assessing the quality of democracy. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. Boston: Addison-Wesley.
EIU/Economist Intelligence Unit. (2010). Democracy index 2010. Democracy in retreat. London: Economist Intelligence Unit. http://graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Democracy_Index_2010_web.pdf.
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.
Freedom House. (2011a). Freedom in the world 2011. Methodology. Washington, DC: Freedom House. http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=351&ana_page=379&year=2011.
Freedom House. (2011b). Freedom in the world – population trends. Washington, DC: Freedom House. http://www.freedomhouse.org/images/File/fiw/historical/PopulationTrendsFIW1980-2011.pdf.
Freedom House. (2011c). Freedom in the world aggregate and subcategory scores. Washington, DC: Freedom House. http://www.freedomhouse.org/images/File/fiw/historical/AggregateScores_FIW2003-2011.xls.
Freedom House. (2011d). Freedom of the press (2011 ed, Country reports). Washington, DC: Freedom House. http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=107&year=2011.
Fröschl, E., Kozeluh, U., & Schaller, C. (Eds.). (2008). Democratisation and de-democratisation in Europe? Austria, Britain, Italy, and the Czech Republic – A comparison. Innsbruck: Studienverlag (Transaction Publishers).
Gastil, R. D. (1993). The comparative survey of freedom: Experiences and suggestions. In A. Inkeles (Ed.), On measuring democracy (pp. 21–46). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Geissel, B., Kneuer, M., & Lauth, H.-J. (2016). Measuring the quality of democracy: Introduction. International Political Science Review, 37(5), 571–579. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0192512116669141.
Giebler, H., & Merkel, W. (2016). Freedom and equality in democracies: Is there a trade-off? International Political Science Review, 37(5), 594–605. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0192512116642221.
Harding, S., Phillips, D., & Fogarty, M. (1986). Contrasting values in Western Europe. Unity, diversity and change. Studies in the contemporary values of modern society. London: MacMillan.
Hausmann, R., Tyson, L. D., & Zahidi, S. (Eds.). (2011). The global gender gap report 2011. Genf: World Economic Forum. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GenderGap_Report_2011.pdf.
Held, D. (2006). Models of democracy. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Helms, L. (2007). Die Institutionalisierung der liberalen Demokratie. Deutschland im internationalen Vergleich. Frankfurt: Campus.
Helms, L. (2016). Democracy and innovation: From institutions to agency and leadership. Democratization, 23(3), 459–477. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13510347.2014.981667.
Heritage Foundation. (2011). 2011 index of economic freedom. Ranking the countries. Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation. http://www.heritage.org/index/pdf/2011/Index2011_Ranking.pdf.
Huddleston, T., Niessen, J., Chaoimh, E. N., & White, E. (Eds.). (2011). Migrant integration policy index III. Brüssel: British Council and Migration Policy Group. http://www.mipex.eu/sites/default/files/downloads/migrant_integration_policy_index_mipexiii_2011.pdf.
IDEA/International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (David Beetham/Edzia Carvalho/Todd Landman/Stuart Weir). (2008). Assessing the quality of democracy. A practical guide. Stockholm: International IDEA. http://www.idea.int/publications/aqd/index.cfm.
IMF/International Monetary Fund. (2011). World economic outlook, April 2011. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2011/01/pdf/text.pdf.
In’t Veld, & Roeland, J. (Eds.). (2010). Knowledge democracy. Consequences for science, politics, and media. Heidelberg: Springer. http://www.springer.com/de/book/9783642113802 and https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-642-11381-9.
Jankowitsch, R. M. (2013). Tretet zurück! Das Ende der Aussitzer und Sesselkleber. Wien: Verlag Carl Ueberreuter.
Kneuer, M. (2016). E-democracy: A new challenge for measuring democracy. International Political Science Review, 37(5), 666–678. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0192512116657677.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lauth, H.-J. (2004). Demokratie und Demokratiemessung. Eine konzeptionelle Grundlegung für den interkulturellen Vergleich. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Lauth, H.-J. (2010). Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Demokratiemessung. Zeitschrift für Staats- und Europawissenschaften, 8(4), 498–529.
Lauth, H.-J. (2011). Qualitative Ansätze der Demokratiemessung. Zeitschrift für Staats- und Europawissenschaften, 9(1), 49–77.
Lauth, H.-J. (2016). The internal relationships of the dimensions of democracy: The relevance of trade-offs for measuring the quality of democracy. International Political Science Review, 37(5), 606–617. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0192512116667630.
Lauth, H.-J., Pickel, G., & Welzel, C. (Eds.). (2000). Demokratiemessung. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Marshall, T. H. (1964). Class, citizenship, and social development. Essays. Garden City: Doubleday.
Morlino, L., & Quaranta, M. (2016). What is the impact of the economic crisis on democracy? Evidence from Europa. International Political Science Review, 37(5), 618–633. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0192512116639747.
Müller, W. C., & Strøm, K. (2000). Conclusion: Coalition governance in Western Europe. In W. C. Müller & K. Strøm (Eds.), Coalition governments in Western Europe (pp. 559–592). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Munck, G. L. (2009). Measuring democracy. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Munck, G. L. (2014). What is democracy? A reconceptualization of the quality of democracy. Political concepts: Committee on Concepts and Methods. Working Paper Series (Working Paper 60, May 2014). http://www.concepts-methods.org/Files/WorkingPaper/60%20Munck%20(2014).pdf.
O’Donnell, G. (2004a). 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: University of Notre Dame Press.
O’Donnell, G. (2004b). Why the rule of law matters. Journal of Democracy, 15(4), 32–46.
OECD. (2011). OECD.Stat extracts. Social and welfare statistics. Paris: OECD. http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx.
Pelinka, A. (2008). Democratisation and de-democratisation in Austria. In E. Fröschl et al. (Eds.), Democratisation and de-democratisation in Europe? Austria, Britain, Italy, and the Czech Republic – A comparison (pp. 21–36). Innsbruck: Studienverlag (Transaction Publishers).
Pelinka, A., & Rosenberger, S. (2003). Österreichische Politik. Grundlagen, Strukturen, Trends. Vienna: Facultas WUV.
Pickel, S., & Pickel, G. (2006). Politische Kultur- und Demokratieforschung. Grundbegriffe, Theorien, Methoden. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Poier, K. (2001). Minderheitenfreundliches Mehrheitswahlrecht. Rechts- und politikwissenschaftliche Überlegungen zu Fragen des Wahlrechts und der Wahlsystematik. Vienna: Böhlau.
Przeworski, A., Alvarez, M. E., Cheibub, J. A., & Limongi, F. (2003). Democracy and development. Political institutions and well-being in the world, 1950–1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rosenberger, S. (Ed.). (2010). Asylpolitik in Österreich. Unterbringung im Fokus. Vienna: Facultas.
Rosenberger, S., & Seeber, G. (2008). Wählen. Vienna: Facultas WUV (UTB).
Schedler, A. (2006). Electoral authoritarianism: The dynamics of unfree competition. Boulder: L. Rienner Publishers.
Schmidt, M. G. (2010). Demokratietheorien. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Schmitter, P. C. (2004). The ambiguous virtues of accountability. Journal of Democracy, 15(4), 47–60.
Sickinger, H. (2009). Politikfinanzierung in Österreich. Vienna: Czernin.
Sodaro, M. J. (2004). Comparative politics. A global introduction. Boston: McGraw Hill.
Stoiber, M. (2011). Die Qualität von Demokratien im Vergleich. Zur Bedeutung des Kontextes in der empirisch vergleichenden Demokratietheorie. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
TI/Transparency International. (2011). Transparency international annual report 2010. Berlin: TI. http://www.transparency.org/content/download/61964/992803.
Umpleby, S. A. (1990). The science of cybernetics and the cybernetics of science. Cybernetics and Systems, 21(1), 109–121. ftp://ftp.vub.ac.be/pub/projects/Principia_Cybernetica/Papers_Umpleby/Science-Cybernetics.txt.
UNDP/United Nations Development Program. (2000). Human development report 2000. Human rights and human development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2000/.
UNDP/United Nations Development Program. (2011). Human development report 2011. Sustainability and equity: A better future for all. New York: UNDP. http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2011_EN_Complete.pdf.
Valchars, G. (2006). Defizitäre Demokratie. Staatsbürgerschaft und Wahlrecht im Einwanderungsland Österreich. Vienna: Braumüller.
Vanhanen, T. (2000). A new dataset for measuring democracy, 1810–1998. Journal of Peace Research, 37(2), 251–265.
Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics or control and communication in the animal and the machine. New York: Wiley.
Wineroither, D. M. (2009). Kanzlermacht – Machtkanzler? Die Regierung Schüssel in historischen und internationalen Vergleich. Vienna: LIT-Verlag.
Winiwarter, V., & Knoll, M. (2007). Umweltgeschichte. Cologne: Böhlau.
Xavier, R. F., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2014). The effects of cyberdemocracy on the Middle East: Egypt and Iran. In E. G. Carayannis, D. F. J. Campbell, & M. P. Efthymiopoulos (Eds.), Cyber-development, cyber-democracy and cyber-defense. Challenges, opportunities and implications for theory, policy and practice (pp. 147–173). New York: Springer. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4939-1028-1_5.
Xavier, R. F., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2017). Cyber-democracy in the Middle East. In E. G. Carayannis, D. F. J. Campbell, & M. P. Efthymiopoulos (Eds.), Handbook of cyber-development, cyber-democracy, and cyber-defense (pp. 1–30). New York: Springer. https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-319-06091-0_5-1.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Section Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this entry
Cite this entry
Campbell, D.F.J., Carayannis, E.G. (2018). Quality of Democracy in Quadruple Helix Structures: OECD Countries in Global Comparison. In: Carayannis, E., Campbell, D., Efthymiopoulos, M. (eds) Handbook of Cyber-Development, Cyber-Democracy, and Cyber-Defense. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09069-6_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09069-6_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-09068-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-09069-6
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences