1 / 30

Sustainable Development: A “Fourth” Dimension for Democracy Measurement?

Sustainable Development: A “Fourth” Dimension for Democracy Measurement?. David F. J. Campbell University of Klagenfurt / Faculty for Interdisciplinary Studies ( iff Fakultät) david.campbell@uni-klu.ac.at

amity
Download Presentation

Sustainable Development: A “Fourth” Dimension for Democracy Measurement?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Sustainable Development:A “Fourth” Dimension for Democracy Measurement? David F. J. Campbell University of Klagenfurt / Faculty for Interdisciplinary Studies (iff Fakultät) david.campbell@uni-klu.ac.at Presentation for “Measuring Democracy” IPSA Workshop(University of Frankfurt): October 1, 2013

  2. Table of Contents • Conceptual Point of Departure • Sustainable Development: A “Fourth” Dimension? • Conclusion: Output and/or Input • References

  3. Conceptual Point of Departure (1) • How broadly (or narrowly) should democracy be defined? • Democracy as a concept of the political system … • versus democracy as a concept of the political system in context of society (and the economy).

  4. Conceptual Point of Departure (2) • Hans-Joachim Lauth (2004, pp. 32-101) suggests a “three-dimensional concept of democracy” that identifies three dimensions: equality, freedom and control. According to Lauth (2004, p. 96), these three dimensions are sufficient for a definition of democracy (see also Lauth 2010 and 2011).

  5. Conceptual Point of Departure (3) • The international “Democracy Barometer” refers to the same three dimensions: • “In the understanding of the Democracy Barometer project, democracy rests on three principles: freedom, control and equality ” (http://www.democracybarometer.org/concept_en.html).

  6. Conceptual Point of Departure (4) • Larry Diamond and Leonardo Morlino (2004, pp. 22-23), in consequence of designing a “multidimensional” framework for research and assessment of quality of democracy, suggest furthermore “eight dimensions of democratic quality”.

  7. Conceptual Point ofDeparture (5) Source for Figure: Campbell, 2008.

  8. Conceptual Point of Departure (5) • Guillermo O’Donnell defines quality of democracy as an interplay (interconnection) of “human rights” and “human development”.

  9. Conceptual Point of Departure (6) Source for Figure: Campbell, 2008.

  10. Conceptual Point of Departure (7) • O’Donnell (2004, pp. 12-13): “... 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 … This vision leads to the question of what may be the basic conditions that normally enable an individual to function as an agent”.

  11. Conceptual Point of Departure (8) • O’Donnell (2004, p. 42): “These are necessary milieus for the existence of these rights, which in their social expression I have called freedoms”.

  12. Conceptual Point of Departure (9) • Guillermo O’Donnell refers “human development” directly to the “Human Development Index” (HDI) of the United Nations (UNDP). • The HDI aggregates: (1) life expectancy, (2) wealth (GDP per capita) and (3) education (literacy).

  13. Sustainable Development: A “Fourth” Dimension? (1) • Sustainable Development as a concept relates to (and integrates) “human development”. • There is a rich and well-developed discourse in and on sustainable development. • So far, sustainable development was not typically associated to quality of democracy (discourses).

  14. Sustainable Development: A “Fourth” Dimension? (2) • Should sustainable development be added as a “fourth” dimension of democracy and quality of democracy (in extension of freedom, equality and control), then a “Quadruple Structure” of dimensions (basic dimensions) of democracy (and quality of democracy) results.

  15. Sustainable Development: A “Fourth” Dimension? (3) Source for Figure: Campbell & Carayannis, 2013.

  16. Sustainable Development: A “Fourth” Dimension? (4) • Sustainable development emphasizes: • Development across a broader spectrum of dimensions (spheres), by recognizing the political system, society, economy, but also the ecology; • Mid-term and long-term perspective (versus short-term); • Sustainable development translates “abstract” rights into “real” (social) freedoms (compare also with O’Donnell); • Sensitivity for practices.

  17. Sustainable Development: A “Fourth” Dimension? (5) • Sustainable development can also refer to how “freedom”, “equality” and “control” relate to each other and (furthermore) to “conceptual attributes” within these three dimensions and their interconnections. • Sustainable development does not refer only to the “non-political”. However, sustainable development brings the “non-political” into perspective for a democracy measurement.

  18. Sustainable Development: A “Fourth” Dimension? (6) • Sustainable development (probably) supports a broader conceptualization of democracy: • Sustainable development has the (conceptual) capability of inter-linking and bridging the political with the non-political (i.e.,the socio-economic and ecological context of the political system).

  19. Sustainable Development: A “Fourth” Dimension? (7) • Particularly for a global comparison of democracies (democracies, semi-democracies and non-democracies), also in different (socio-economic) developmental stages, “sustainable development” allows to distinguish (or formulate hypotheses) between different levels and levels of progress of quality of democracy.

  20. Sustainable Development: A “Fourth” Dimension? (8) • Should sustainable development be added as a fourth dimension to democracy and quality of democracy, then this clearly would impact democracy measurement. • In dependence of the concrete conceptualization of sustainable development, very different and additional indicators may be further included.

  21. Conclusion: Output and/or Input (1) • Quality-of-democracy measurement always is challenged to actually measure democracy and not how “conservative”, “liberal” or “social democratic” a democracy (country) is (when we understand democracy as “meta” to ideologies). • So how to embed a left/right neutrality for democracy measurement?

  22. Conclusion: Output and/or Input (2) • Under specific conditions (which would have to be exemplified), the “performance” of indicators could be “interpreted” as a form of output (outcome). • “Performance” orientation (also sustainable development) may help to achieve more of a “left/right” neutrality.

  23. Conclusion: Output and/or Input (3) Source for Figure: Campbell, 2008.

  24. Conclusion: Output and/or Input (4) Source for Figure: Campbell, 2012.

  25. Conclusion: Output and/or Input (5) • (1) Sustainable development as a performance-based output (outcome), also reflecting the effectiveness of policies (“responsible behavior” of the political system), and (2) sustainable development as an input (“capability-enhancing basic conditions”) for freedom and equality (and control).

  26. Conclusion: Output and/or Input (6) • Freedom, equality, control, and sustainable development (suggested as basic dimensions of democracy) could equally be discussed under considerations of “input”, “throughput” and “output” (outcome). • Metaphorically speaking, they relate to each other in a flexible “matrix structure”.

  27. Conclusion: Output and/or Input (7) Source for Figure: Campbell, 2013.

  28. References (1) • Campbell, David F. J. (2008). The Basic Concept for the Democracy Ranking of the Quality of Democracy. Vienna: Democracy Ranking (http://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/29063 and http://democracyranking.org/wordpress/ranking/basic_concept.pdf). • Campbell, David F. J. (2012). Die österreichische Demokratiequalität in Perspektive [The Quality of Democracy in Austria in Perspective], 293-315, in: Ludger Helms / David M. Wineroither (eds.): Die österreichische Demokratie im Vergleich [Austrian Democracy in Comparison]. Baden-Baden: Nomos (http://www.uni-klu.ac.at/wiho/downloads/QoD-Text_12.pdf). • Campbell, David F. J. (2013). Habilitation (in progress). Vienna: University of Vienna.

  29. References (2) • Campbell, David F. J. / Elias G. Carayannis (2013). Quality of Democracy and Innovation, 1527-1534, in: Elias G. Carayannis (Editor-in-Chief): Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship. New York, NY: Springer (http://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-1-4614-3858-8_509#). • Dahl, Robert A. (1971). Polyarchy. Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press. • Diamond, Larry / Leonardo Morlino (2004). The Quality of Democracy. An Overview. Journal of Democracy 15 (4), 20-31. • Lauth, Hans-Joachim (2004). Demokratie und Demokratiemessung. Eine konzeptionelle Grundlegung für den interkulturellen Vergleich. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

  30. References (3) • Lauth, Hans-Joachim (2010). Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Demokratiemessung. Zeitschrift für Staats- und Europawissenschaften 8 (4), 498-529. • Lauth, Hans-Joachim (2011). Qualitative Ansätze der Demokratiemessung. Zeitschrift für Staats- und Europawissenschaften 9 (1), 49-77. • O’Donnell, Guillermo (2004). Human Development, Human Rights, and Democracy, 9-92, in: Guillermo O’Donnell / Jorge Vargas Cullell / Osvaldo M. Iazzetta (eds.): The Quality of Democracy. Theory and Applications. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.

More Related