Quality of Democracy and Innovation

Synonyms

Basic dimensions of democracy; Coevolution; Conceptualization of democracy; Democracy; Democracy, Theory; Democratic innovation; Democratizing innovation; Development; Innovation of democracy; Innovative democracy; Knowledge democracy; Model of quadruple helix structures; Quadruple helix; Quadruple helix structure of democracy; Quadruple-dimensional structure of democracy; Quality of democracy; Sustainable development

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. 32–101) suggests in this context a “three-dimensional concept of democracy,” which is composed of the following (conceptual) dimensions: equality, freedom, and control (see Fig. 1). These dimensions can be interpreted as “basic dimensions” of democracy and of the quality of democracy. Lauth (2004, p. 96) underlines that these dimensions are “sufficient” to obtain a definition of democracy. The term “dimension” offers a conceptual elegance that can be applied “trans-theoretically,” meaning that different theories of democracy may be put in relation and may be mapped comparatively in reference to those dimensions. Metaphorically formulated, dimensions behave like “building blocks” for theories and theory development. With regard to democracy and the quality of democracy, every interest in analysis and assessment is confronted with the following point-of-departure question and challenge: whether (1) democracy exclusively refers or should refer to the political system (political dimension) or whether (2) democracy should also include social (societal), economic, and ecological contexts (nonpolitical dimensions) of the political system. This produces implications on the selection of indicators to be used for democracy measurement. How “limited” or “broadly” focused should be the definition of democracy? This is also reflected in the minimalistic (minimalist) versus maximalistic (maximalist) democracy theory debate (see Sodaro 2004, pp. 168, 180, and 182). In this regard, various theoretical positions elaborate on this concept. Perhaps, it is (was) from an orthodox point of view of theory to limit democracy to the political system (Munck 2009, pp. 126–127). More recent approaches are more sensitive for the contexts of the political system, however, still must establish themselves in the political mainstream debates (see, e.g., Stoiber 2011). Nevertheless, explicit theoretical examples are emerging for the purpose of incorporation into the democracy models the social (societal), economic, and ecological contexts. The theoretical model of the “democracy ranking” is an initiative that represents such an explicit example (Campbell 2008).

Quality of Democracy and Innovation, Fig. 1

The basic quardruple-dimension structure of democracy and the quality of democracy (Source: Author’s own concoptualization and visualization, based on Campbell (2008, p. 32) and for the dimension of “control” on Lauth (2004, pp. 32–101))

Over time, democracy theories are becoming more complex and demanding in nature, regardless, whether the understanding of democracy refers only to the political system or includes also the contexts of the political system. This also reflects on the establishment of democracy models. The most simple democracy model is that of the “electoral democracy” (Helms 2007, p. 19), also known as “voting democracy” (“Wahldemokratie,” Campbell and Barth 2009, p. 212). An electoral democracy focuses on the process of elections, highlights the political rights, and refers to providing minimum standards and rights, however, enough to be classified as a democracy. Freedom House (2011a) defines electoral democracy by using the following criteria: “a competitive, multiparty political system”; “universal adult suffrage for all citizens”; “regularly contested elections”; and “significant public access of major political parties to the electorate through the media and through generally open political campaigning.” The next, qualitatively better level of democracy is the so-called liberal democracy. A liberal democracy is characterized by political rights and more importantly also by civil liberties as well as complex and sophisticated forms of institutionalization. The liberal democracy does not only want to fulfill minimum standards (thresholds) but aims on ascending to the quality and standards of a developed, hence, an advanced democracy. Every liberal democracy is also an electoral democracy, but not every electoral democracy is automatically a liberal democracy. In this regard, Freedom House (2011a) states: “Freedom House’s term ‘electoral democracy’ differs from ‘liberal democracy’ in that the latter also implies the presence of a substantial array of civil liberties. In the survey, all the ‘Free’ countries qualify as both electoral and liberal democracies. By contrast, some ‘Partly Free’ countries qualify as electoral, but not liberal, democracies.” Asserting different (perhaps ideal-typical) conceptual stages of development for a further quality increasing and progressing of democracy, the following stages may be put up for discussion: electoral democracy, liberal democracy, and advanced (liberal) democracy with a high quality of democracy.

In Polyarchy, Robert A. Dahl (1971, pp. 2–9) comes to the conclusion that mostly two dimensions suffice in order to be able to describe the functions of democratic regimes: (1) contestation (“public contestation,” “political competition”) and (2) participation (“participation,” “inclusiveness,” “right to participate in elections and office”). Also relevant are Anthony Downs’ (1957, pp. 23–24) eight criteria in An Economic Theory of Democracy, defining a “democratic government,” but it could be argued that those are affiliated closer with an electoral democracy. In the beginning of the twenty-first century is the conceptual understanding of democracy and the quality of democracy already more differentiated, it can be said that crucial conceptual further developments are in progress. Larry Diamond and Leonardo Morlino (2004, pp. 22–28) have come up with an “eight dimensions of democratic quality” proposal. These include (1) rule of law, (2) participation, (3) competition, (4) vertical accountability, (5) horizontal accountability, (6) freedom, (7) equality, and (8) responsiveness. Diamond and Morlino (2004, p. 22) further state: “The multidimensional nature of our framework, and of the growing number of democracy assessments that are being conducted, implies a pluralist notion of democratic quality.” These eight dimensions distinguish themselves conceptually with regard to procedure, content, and results as the basis (conceptual quality basis) to be used in differentiating the quality of democracy (see Diamond and Morlino 2004, pp. 21–22; 2005; see also Campbell and Barth 2009, pp. 212–213). The “eight dimensions” of Diamond and Morlino may be interpreted as “secondary dimensions” of democracy and the quality of democracy for the purpose of democracy measurement.

“Earlier debates were strongly influenced by a dichotomous understanding that democracies stood in contrast to non-democracies” (Campbell and Barth 2009, p. 210). However, with the quantitative expansion and spreading of democratic regimes, it is more important to differentiate between the qualities of different democracies. According to Freedom House (2011b), in the year 1980 no less than 42.5 % of the world population lived in “not free” political contexts; by 2010, this share dropped to 35.4 %. Democracies themselves are subject to further development, which is a continuous process and does not finish upon the establishment of a democracy. Democracies have to find answers and solutions to new challenges and possible problems. Democracy is in a constant need to find and reinvent itself. Observed over time, different scenarios could take place and could keep a democracy quality going on constantly; however, democracy quality could erode, but also improve. A betterment of the quality of democracy should be the ultimate aim of a democracy. Earlier ideas about an electoral democracy are becoming outdated and will not suffice in today’s era.

Gillermo O’Donnell (2004a) developed a broad theoretical understanding of democracy and the quality of democracy. In his theoretical approach, quality of democracy develops itself further through an interaction between human development and human rights: “True, in its origin the concept of human development focused mostly on the social and economic context, while the concept of human rights focused mostly on the legal system and on the prevention and redress of state violence” (O’Donnell 2004a, p. 12). The human rights differentiate themselves in civil rights, political rights, and social rights, in which O’Donnell (2004a, p. 47) assumes and adopts the classification of T. H. Marshall (1964). Human development prompts “…what may be, at least, a minimum set of conditions, or capabilities, that enable human beings to function in ways appropriate to their condition as such beings” (O’Donnell 2004a, p. 12), therefore in accordance with human dignity and, moreover, the possibility of participating realistically in political processes within a democracy. O’Donnell also refers directly to the Human Development Reports with the Human Development Index (HDI) that are being released and published annually by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) (for a comprehensive website address for all Human Development Reports that is publicly accessible for free downloads, see: http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2011/). Explicitly, Gillermo O’Donnell (2004a, pp. 11–12) points out: “The concept of human development that has been proposed and widely diffused by UNDP’s Reports and the work of Amartya Sen was a reversal of prevailing views about development. … The concept asks how every individual is doing in relation to the achievement of ‘the most elementary capabilities, such as living a long and healthy life, being knowledgeable, and enjoying a decent standard of living’” (O’Donnell 2004a, pp. 11–12; UNDP 2000, p. 20). If the implementation of O’Donnell is reflected upon the initial questions asked in this contribution for the conceptualization of democracy and the quality of democracy, it can be interpreted but also convincingly argued that “sustainable development” can be suggested as an additional dimension (“basic dimension”) for democracy, which would be important for the quality of democracy in a global perspective (for a systematic attempt of empirical assessment on possible linkages between democracy and development, see Przeworski et al. 2003). As a result of the distinction between dimensions (basic dimensions) for democracy and the quality of democracy, the following proposition is put up for debate: in addition to the dimensions of freedom, equality, and control as being suggested by Lauth (2004, pp. 32–101), the dimension of sustainable development should be introduced as a fourth dimension (see again Fig. 1). Regarding suggestions for defining sustainable development, Verena Winiwarter and Martin Knoll (2007, pp. 306–307) commented: “In the meantime, as described, multiple definitions for sustainability exist. A fundamental distinction within the definition lies in the question whether only the relation of society with nature or if additionally social and economic factors should be considered.”

In political context and in political competition, equality often is associated closer with left-wing political positions and freedom with right-wing (conservative) positions (e.g., see Harding et al. 1986, p. 87). A measure of performance of political and nonpolitical dimensions in relation to sustainable development has the advantage (especially in the case where sustainable development is understood comprehensively) that this procedure is mostly (often) left–right neutral. Such a measure of performance as a basis of the assessment of democracy and quality of democracy offers an additional reference point (“meta-reference point”) outside of usual ideologically based conflict positions (Campbell 2008, pp. 30–32). It can be argued in a similar manner that the dimension of control mentioned by Lauth (2004, pp. 77–96) positions itself as left–right neutral as well. The definition developed by the “democracy ranking” for the quality of democracy is “Quality of Democracy = (freedom & other characteristics of the political system) & (performance of the nonpolitical dimensions)” (Campbell 2008). This definition is interpreted as a further empirical operationalization step and as a practical application for the measurement of democracy and the quality of democracy, respectively, which is based on the theory about the quality of democracy by Guillermo O’Donnell (see also O’Donnell 2004b). However, the conceptual democracy formula of the “democracy ranking” has been developed independently (Campbell and Sükösd 2002).

Conclusion and Future Directions

There are different theories, conceptual approaches, and models for knowledge production and innovation systems. In the Triple Helix model of innovation, Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (2000, p. 112) developed a conceptual architecture for innovation, where they tie together the three helices of academia (higher education), industry (business), and state (government). This conceptual approach was extended by Carayannis and Campbell (2009; 2012, p. 14) in the so-called Quadruple Helix model of innovation systems by adding as a fourth helix the “media-based and culture-based public” as well as “civil society.” The Quadruple Helix, therefore, is broader than the Triple Helix and contextualizes the Triple Helix, by interpreting Triple Helix as a core model that is being embedded in and by the more comprehensive Quadruple Helix. Furthermore, the next-stage model of the Quintuple Helix model of innovation contextualizes the Quadruple Helix, by bringing in a further new perspective by adding the “natural environment” (natural environments) of society. The Quintuple Helix represents a “five-helix model,” “where the environment or the natural environments represent the fifth helix” (Carayannis and Campbell 2010, p. 61). In trying to emphasize, compare, and contrast the focuses of those different Helix innovation models, it can be asserted that the Triple Helix concentrates on the knowledge economy, the Quadruple Helix on knowledge society and knowledge democracy, while the Quintuple Helix refers to socio-ecological transitions and the natural environments (Carayannis et al. 2012, p. 4; see also Carayannis and Campbell 2011; European Commission 2009; Fischer-Kowalski and Haberl 2007). For explaining and comparing democracy and the quality of democracy, a “quadruple-dimensional structure” has been proposed here that refers to four different “basic dimensions” of democracy that are being called freedom, equality, control, and sustainable development (Fig. 1 offers a visualization on these). Here, actually a line of comparison may be drawn between concepts and models in the theorizing on democracy and democracy quality and the theorizing on knowledge production and innovation systems. This opens up a window of opportunity for an interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaching of democracy as well as of knowledge production and innovation, also of “democratic innovation” (Saward 2000) and “democratizing innovation” (Von Hippel 2005). In conceptual terms, the quadruple-dimensional structure of democracy could also be rearranged (re-architectured) in reference to helices, by this creating a “model of Quadruple Helix structures” for democracy and the quality of democracy. The metaphor and visualization in reference to terms of helices emphasizes the fluid and dynamic interaction, overlap, and coevolution of the individual dimensions of democracy. As basic dimensions for democracy were proposed to identify freedom, equality, control, and sustainable development. Figure 2 introduces a possible visualization from a helix perspective for a theoretical framing of democracy.

Quality of Democracy and Innovation, Fig. 2

The quadruple helix structure of the basic dimension of democracy and the quality of democracy (Source: Author’s own conceptualization based on Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (2000, p. 112), Carayannis and Campbell (2012, p. 14), Danilda et al. (2009), Campbell (2008, p.32) and for the dimension of “control” on Lauth (2004, pp. 32–101))

Specific challenges for future research but also for future reform and development are as follows:

• 1. Is there an unfolding relationship, perhaps also coevolution, between democracy, knowledge democracy, and the quality of democracy?

• 2. Do innovations in and of democracy produce and create an innovative democracy?

• 3. Does innovative democracy support knowledge production and knowledge application (innovation) in the knowledge society and knowledge economy?

• 4. Is sustainable development, in the long run, only possible, when democracy, innovation, and entrepreneurship find together by forming in balance a complex and sensitive interaction and coevolution?

Cross-References

Epistemic Governance and Epistemic Innovation Policy

Innovation and Democracy

Innovation Policies (vis-à-vis Practice and Theory)

Innovations of Direct Democracy

Interdisciplinary Research (Interdisciplinarity)

Joseph A. Schumpeter and Innovation

Mode 1, Mode 2, and Innovation

Mode 3 Knowledge Production in Quadruple Helix Innovation Systems: Quintuple Helix and Social Ecology

Multi-level Systems of Innovation

National Innovation Systems (NIS)

Nonlinear Innovations

Political Leadership and Innovation

Quintuple Innovation Helix and Global Warming: Challenges and Opportunities for Policy and Practice

Systems Theory and Innovation

Transdisciplinary Research (Transdisciplinarity)

Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations

University Research and Innovation