Quality of Democracy in Quadruple Helix Structures: OECD Countries in Global Comparison

Campbell, David F. J.; Carayannis, Elias G.

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-06091-0_7-1

David F. J. Campbell^4,5,6 &
Elias G. Carayannis⁷

133 Accesses

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

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

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.
Google Scholar
Barth, T. D. (2011). Die 20 besten Demokratien der Welt. Freiheit – Gleichheit – Demokratiequalität auf einen Blick. Norderstedt: Books on Demand.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
Beck, E. R. A., & Schaller, C. (2003). Zur Qualität der britischen und österreichischen Demokratie. Vienna: Böhlau.
Google Scholar
Beetham, D. (1994). Key principles and indices for a democratic audit. In D. Beetham (Ed.), Defining and measuring democracy (pp. 25–43). London: Sage.
Google Scholar
Beetham, D. (2004). Freedom as the foundation. Journal of Democracy, 15(4), 61–75.
Article Google Scholar
Beetham, D., Byrne, I., Ngan, P., & Weir, S. (2002). Democracy under Blair. A democratic audit of the United Kingdom. London: Politico’s Publishing.
Google Scholar
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.
Chapter Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Chapter Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Chapter Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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#.
Chapter Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
Campbell, D. F. J., Liebhart, K., Martinsen, R., Schaller, C., & Schedler, A. (Eds.). (1996). Die Qualität der österreichischen Demokratie. Versuche einer Annäherung. Vienna: Manz.
Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
Campbell, D. F. J., Pölzlbauer, P., & Barth, T. D. (2017). Democracy ranking 2016. Vienna: Democracy Ranking Organization. http://democracyranking.org/wordpress/2016-full-dataset/.
Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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/.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
Cunningham, F. (2002). Theories of democracy. London: Routledge.
Book Google Scholar
Dahl, R. A. (1971). Polyarchy. Participation and opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
Diamond, L., & Morlino, L. (2004). The quality of democracy. An overview. Journal of Democracy, 15(4), 20–31.
Article Google Scholar
Diamond, L., & Morlino, L. (2005). Assessing the quality of democracy. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Google Scholar
Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. Boston: Addison-Wesley.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
Freedom House. (2011b). Freedom in the world – population trends. Washington, DC: Freedom House. http://www.freedomhouse.org/images/File/fiw/historical/PopulationTrendsFIW1980-2011.pdf.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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).
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
Held, D. (2006). Models of democracy. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Google Scholar
Helms, L. (2007). Die Institutionalisierung der liberalen Demokratie. Deutschland im internationalen Vergleich. Frankfurt: Campus.
Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
Jankowitsch, R. M. (2013). Tretet zurück! Das Ende der Aussitzer und Sesselkleber. Wien: Verlag Carl Ueberreuter.
Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Google Scholar
Lauth, H.-J. (2004). Demokratie und Demokratiemessung. Eine konzeptionelle Grundlegung für den interkulturellen Vergleich. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Google Scholar
Lauth, H.-J. (2010). Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Demokratiemessung. Zeitschrift für Staats- und Europawissenschaften, 8(4), 498–529.
Article Google Scholar
Lauth, H.-J. (2011). Qualitative Ansätze der Demokratiemessung. Zeitschrift für Staats- und Europawissenschaften, 9(1), 49–77.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
Lauth, H.-J., Pickel, G., & Welzel, C. (Eds.). (2000). Demokratiemessung. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Google Scholar
Marshall, T. H. (1964). Class, citizenship, and social development. Essays. Garden City: Doubleday.
Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
Munck, G. L. (2009). Measuring democracy. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
O’Donnell, G. (2004b). Why the rule of law matters. Journal of Democracy, 15(4), 32–46.
Article Google Scholar
OECD. (2011). OECD.Stat extracts. Social and welfare statistics. Paris: OECD. http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx.
Google Scholar
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).
Google Scholar
Pelinka, A., & Rosenberger, S. (2003). Österreichische Politik. Grundlagen, Strukturen, Trends. Vienna: Facultas WUV.
Google Scholar
Pickel, S., & Pickel, G. (2006). Politische Kultur- und Demokratieforschung. Grundbegriffe, Theorien, Methoden. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Google Scholar
Poier, K. (2001). Minderheitenfreundliches Mehrheitswahlrecht. Rechts- und politikwissenschaftliche Überlegungen zu Fragen des Wahlrechts und der Wahlsystematik. Vienna: Böhlau.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
Rosenberger, S. (Ed.). (2010). Asylpolitik in Österreich. Unterbringung im Fokus. Vienna: Facultas.
Google Scholar
Rosenberger, S., & Seeber, G. (2008). Wählen. Vienna: Facultas WUV (UTB).
Google Scholar
Schedler, A. (2006). Electoral authoritarianism: The dynamics of unfree competition. Boulder: L. Rienner Publishers.
Google Scholar
Schmidt, M. G. (2010). Demokratietheorien. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Book Google Scholar
Schmitter, P. C. (2004). The ambiguous virtues of accountability. Journal of Democracy, 15(4), 47–60.
Article Google Scholar
Sickinger, H. (2009). Politikfinanzierung in Österreich. Vienna: Czernin.
Google Scholar
Sodaro, M. J. (2004). Comparative politics. A global introduction. Boston: McGraw Hill.
Google Scholar
Stoiber, M. (2011). Die Qualität von Demokratien im Vergleich. Zur Bedeutung des Kontextes in der empirisch vergleichenden Demokratietheorie. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Book Google Scholar
TI/Transparency International. (2011). Transparency international annual report 2010. Berlin: TI. http://www.transparency.org/content/download/61964/992803.
Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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/.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
Valchars, G. (2006). Defizitäre Demokratie. Staatsbürgerschaft und Wahlrecht im Einwanderungsland Österreich. Vienna: Braumüller.
Google Scholar
Vanhanen, T. (2000). A new dataset for measuring democracy, 1810–1998. Journal of Peace Research, 37(2), 251–265.
Article Google Scholar
Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics or control and communication in the animal and the machine. New York: Wiley.
Google Scholar
Wineroither, D. M. (2009). Kanzlermacht – Machtkanzler? Die Regierung Schüssel in historischen und internationalen Vergleich. Vienna: LIT-Verlag.
Google Scholar
Winiwarter, V., & Knoll, M. (2007). Umweltgeschichte. Cologne: Böhlau.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Department of Political Science, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
David F. J. Campbell
Unit for Quality Enhancement (UQE), University of Applied Arts Vienna, Vienna, Austria
David F. J. Campbell
Faculty for Interdisciplinary Studies (iff), Alpen-Adria-University Klagenfurt, Institute of Science Communication and Higher Education Research (WIHO), Vienna, Austria
David F. J. Campbell
Department of Information Systems & Technology Management, School of Business, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA
Elias G. Carayannis

Authors

David F. J. Campbell
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Elias G. Carayannis
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David F. J. Campbell .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

School of Business, George Washington University, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
Elias G. Carayannis
University of Applied Arts Vienna, Vienna, Austria
David F. J. Campbell
Strategy International, Thessaloniki, Greece
Marios Panagiotis Efthymiopoulos

Section Editor information

Faculty for Interdisciplinary Studies, Alpen-Adria-University Klagenfurt, Vienna, Austria
David F. J. Campbell

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

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/10.1007/978-3-319-06091-0_7-1

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06091-0_7-1
Received: 12 October 2017
Accepted: 13 October 2017
Published: 25 October 2017
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-06091-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-06091-0
eBook Packages: Springer Reference Economics and FinanceReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics