Global Democracy Ranking Project on Quality of Democracy - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Global Democracy Ranking Project on Quality of Democracy PowerPoint presentation | free to view - id: 713c12-NTQ3Y



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Global Democracy Ranking Project on Quality of Democracy

Description:

Global Democracy Ranking Project on Quality of Democracy David F. J. Campbell & Thorsten D. Barth University of Klagenfurt, Austria / iff Faculty for ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:58
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 40
Provided by: david3163
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Global Democracy Ranking Project on Quality of Democracy


1
Global Democracy Ranking Project onQuality of
Democracy
  • David F. J. Campbell Thorsten D. Barth
  • University of Klagenfurt, Austria / iff Faculty
    for Interdisciplinary Studies / Institute of
    Science Communication and Higher Education
    Research (WIHO) /
  • http//www.uni-klu.ac.at/wiho
  • david.campbell_at_uni-klu.ac.at
  • barth.thorsten_at_arcor.de
  • Democracy Ranking
  • http//www.democracyranking.org/en/
  • Presentation November 30, 2011

2
Table of Contents
  • Conceptual Dimensions for Democracy Measurement
  • Comparison of Democracy Measurement Initiatives
  • Democracy Ranking 2010
  • Empirical Results World Maps
  • References

3
Conceptual Dimensions forDemocracy Measurement
(1)
  • The literature distinguishes in conceptual terms
    often between the following dimensions of
    democracy
  • Freedom
  • Equality (equity)
  • Control (?)
  • Self-organization (?) (for example, political
    swings, government-opposition-cycles)
  • Sustainable Development

4
Conceptual Dimensions forDemocracy Measurement
(2)
  • How focused or how broad (comprehensive)
    should democracy be conceptualized?
  • Less ambitious versus more ambitious approaches
    on and for democracy
  • Only the political system (institutions of
    government, the political core processes) versus
    the political system in context of society,
    economy and ecology (effects of politics on
    society, economy and ecology, political economy
    and social ecology), in a multi-level
    architecture (transnational, global
    democracy?).

5
Conceptual Dimensions forDemocracy Measurement
(3)
  • Electoral democracy (election-based concepts)
    versus liberal democracy versus high-quality
    (liberal) democracy?

6
Conceptual Dimensions forDemocracy Measurement
(4)
  • Key characteristics (minimum standards) of the
    electoral democracy are (according to Freedom
    House)
  • (1) A competitive, multiparty political system
  • (2) Universal adult suffrage for all citizens
  • (3) Regularly contested elections conducted in
    conditions of ballot secrecy, reasonable ballot
    secrecy, and in the absence of massive voter
    fraud, and that yield results that are
    representative of the public will
  • (4) Significant public access of major political
    parties to the electorate through the media and
    through generally open political campaigning.

7
Conceptual Dimensions forDemocracy Measurement
(5)
  • Every liberal democracy is also an electoral
    democracy, but not necessarily the other way
    around.
  • One extension of the electoral democracy to a
    liberal democracy is by adding civil
    liberties to the political rights (e.g., this
    represent the approach of Freedom House).

8
Conceptual Dimensions forDemocracy Measurement
(6)
  • Is there a tendency that conceptual definitions
    of democracy are becoming more ambitiously and
    more challenging (broader) over time?
  • Now, is there more of a tendency wanting to
    distinguish between different democracies and
    their qualities?
  • Earlier, there was more dichotomy of free
    versus not free (during the period of systems
    competition between the West and communism)
  • The number of democracies (also of electoral
    democracies?) is increasing
  • Democracies change, is there also a permanent
    need for continous democracy reform?

9
Conceptual Dimensions forDemocracy Measurement
(7)
  • Robert Dahl (1971) distinguished between two key
    dimensions of democracy
  • Participation
  • Contestation (competition).
  • Larry Diamond and Leonardo Morlino (2004)
    identify already eight key dimensions for the
    quality of democracy
  • (1) rule of law
  • (2) participation
  • (3) competition
  • (4) vertical accountability

10
Conceptual Dimensions forDemocracy Measurement
(8)
  • (5) horizontal accountability
  • (6) freedom
  • (7) equality
  • (8) responsiveness.

11
Conceptual Dimensions forDemocracy Measurement
(9)
12
Conceptual Dimensions forDemocracy Measurement
(10)
  • Guillermo ODonnell defines the quality of
    democracy in the following way
  • Quality of Democracy (human rights) (human
    development).

13
Conceptual Dimensions forDemocracy Measurement
(11)
14
Comparison of Democracy Measurement Initiatives
(1)
  • Three democracy measurement initiatives in
    comparison
  • Freedom House (http// www.freedomhouse.org)
  • Democracy Index (http// www.eiu.com/index.asp?rf
    0)
  • Democracy Ranking (http// www.democracyranking.or
    g/en)

15
Comparison of Democracy Measurement Initiatives
(2)
  • Freedom House
  • Freedom political rights civil
    liberties (in the sense of checklist questions,
    peer review)
  • Annually, a Map of Freedom is being released
    (since 1972)
  • Comprehensive scoring for countries (1-7) free,
    partly free, not free
  • In recent years, also aggregate scores, also
    for subcategories, are available.

16
Comparison of Democracy Measurement Initiatives
(3)
  • Democracy Index
  • Democracy electoral process and pluralism
    functioning of government political
    participation political culture civil
    liberties (in methodic terms, peer review is
    important for data generation)
  • This initiative started in 2006
  • Comprehensive scoring (0-10) for countries full
    democracies, flawed democracies, hybrid
    regimes, authoritarian regimes.

17
Comparison of Democracy Measurement Initiatives
(4)
  • Global Democracy Ranking of the Quality of
    Democracy

18
Comparison of Democracy Measurement Initiatives
(5)
  • Democracy Ranking
  • Quality of democracy (freedom other
    characteristics of the political system)
    (performance of the non-political dimensions)
    (aggregation and bundling of already existing
    data, indicators, which are publicly accessible)
  • Emphasis on a broader conceptualization of
    democracy
  • Emphasis on performance (to achieve a left/right
    balancing of ideologies)
  • Emphasis on sustainable development (in a
    mid-term perspective).

19
Comparison of Democracy Measurement Initiatives
(6)
20
Comparison of Democracy Measurement Initiatives
(7)
  • Democracy Ranking is being based on six
    dimensions and their specific indicator
    assignments.

21
Comparison of Democracy Measurement Initiatives
(8)
  • Democracy Ranking integrates explicitly the
    dimension of ecology or natural environments,
    as also is being done for knowledge and
    innovation in the Quintuple Helix (Carayannis
    and Campbell, 2010).

22
Comparison of Democracy Measurement Initiatives
(9)
  • The Democracy Ranking indicates what happens if
    the Freedom Ratings from Freedom House are
    equally compared and integrated with the Human
    Development Index of the United Nations
    Development Program, in order to be able to
    comprehensively understand democracy and the
    quality of democracy. International organizations
    are sometimes cautious of making a direct
    statement about democracy, since they are worried
    to come into conflict with some of their member
    states.

23
Comparison of Democracy Measurement Initiatives
(10)
  • Democracy Ranking
  • The Democracy Ranking focuses on countries
    (country-based democracies)
  • Each Democracy Ranking compares different years,
    to show changes of the quality of democracy over
    several years
  • The Democracy Ranking 2010 compares specifically
    averages for the years 2005-2006 and 2008-2009
  • The first pilot ranking focused on the two years
    1998-1999
  • Full Democracy Rankings are now available for the
    index years 2008, 2009 and 2010
  • Newer Democracy Rankings re-compute earlier
    Democracy Rankings

24
Comparison of Democracy Measurement Initiatives
(11)
  • The Democracy Ranking always is being
    complemented by the Democracy Improvement
    Ranking, which ranks countries on the basis of
    increases or decreases of their quality of
    democracy
  • The total scale range is from 1-100, with 100
    indicating the possible optimum (for a
    pre-indicated time period
  • To be covered by the Democracy Ranking, countries
    must fulfill two crieteria
  • To be categorized by Freedom House as free or
    at least partly free
  • Having a population of at leas one million.
  • The Democracy Ranking 2010 also calculated
    virtual scores for Russia and China.
  • Every year, a new Democracy Ranking should be
    released (now scheduled for the month of
    December, the so-called Early Release).

25
Democracy Ranking 2010 Empirical Results (1)
  • Democracy Ranking 2010 top ranking countries
    (democracies).

26
Democracy Ranking 2010 Empirical Results (2)
  • Democracy Ranking 2010 bottom ranking
    countries (democracies).

27
Democracy Ranking 2010 Empirical Results (3)
  • Democracy Improvement Ranking 2010 top
    ranking countries (democracies).

28
(No Transcript)
29
(No Transcript)
30
(No Transcript)
31
Democracy Ranking 2010 Empirical Results (4)
  • The top 10 (top 15) countries of the Democracy
    Ranking 2010 The Nordic countries (Norway,
    Sweden, Finland, Denmark) and Switzerland are the
    top 5 countries, also New Zeeland, the
    Netherlands, Ireland, Germany, and the UK have
    very high scores. This continuing global top
    position of the Nordic countries is impressive,
    also because this top position is being
    reproduced quite stable across the different
    (sub-)dimensions. Thus it can be said that the
    Nordic countries define in a positive view a
    global benchmark for quality of democracy that is
    empirically already available. From the top 10
    countries seven belong to the EU. In total, the
    prominent representation of European democracies
    at the top positions is remarkable. This
    underscores that the European integration process
    should be understood, in the global context, even
    more clearly as a democracy project. The
    quality of democracy of Europes democracies
    will influence and support the endurance of the
    European integration and of the EU.

32
Democracy Ranking 2010 Empirical Results (5)
  • The United States All of the classical
    English-speaking countries are within the top 15.
    During the last years the U.S. has improved from
    rank 16 to 15. For a further and sound
    academically-based discussion it would certainly
    be interesting to compare, more systematically
    than previously, the quality of democracy of the
    U.S. with the entire area of the EU15 or EU27.

33
Democracy Ranking 2010 Empirical Results (6)
  • Hungary, Bulgaria, and Italy Hungary is the
    European democracy, which is this time the
    relative loser Hungary slipped from rank 26
    to rank 32. Bulgaria is the only democracy in
    Europe, which lost not only by the relative
    ranking but also by absolute scores. For the
    political dimension Bulgaria as well as Italy
    acquired losses for political rights, civil
    liberties, and freedom of the press. This
    demonstrates that a certain amount of democracy
    and democracy quality cannot be misunderstood as
    a given constant. Democracy is always in flux,
    each society and each political system must be in
    continual reflection of maintaining its democracy
    and its improvement. This is valid not only for
    democracies within the EU but also elsewhere
    outside of the EU.

34
Democracy Ranking 2010 Empirical Results (7)
  • Poland Within the EU, Poland achieved the
    largest improvement of quality of democracy.
    Poland improved continuously and throughout all
    dimensions. In addition to a fast economic
    development there is also a considerable
    improvement of its democracy quality. Thus this
    young EU member country impressively shows that
    improvement in democracy is certainly not a
    privilege of the established old democracies of
    Western Europe.

35
Democracy Ranking 2010 Empirical Results (8)
  • Serbia In the worldwide comparison, Serbia is
    that democracy which realized the second largest
    relative improvement during the last years.
    Serbia even attains the first place at a
    pronounced distance for the relative improvement
    in Europe. Serbia improved itself over all
    dimensions. If Serbia can continue this speed
    then an EU membership of Serbia will present
    itself within the coming years increasingly as an
    option.

36
Democracy Ranking 2010 Empirical Results (9)
  • Israel, South Korea, Singapore, and Kuwait The
    Democracy Ranking 2010 demonstrates that often
    democracies from emerging countries at least
    for individual dimensions scored higher that
    many of the traditional western democracies.
    Democracy and quality of democracy are becoming
    an even more global phenomenon and are for
    certain not only a privilege of the old
    industrial nations the World of Democracies
    turns increasingly pluralistic. Israel and South
    Korea score very high in the dimension knowledge
    (education) for example considerably higher
    than Austria , Kuwait and Singapore place very
    high in the economic dimension. While Kuwait
    often scored lower in the other dimensions, the
    development in Singapore manifests itself to be
    more sustainable, since Singapore can also score
    better across other dimensions.

37
Democracy Ranking 2010 Empirical Results (10)
  • India and Bangladesh Relative to the quality of
    democracy, India and Bangladesh ranked worldwide
    in the lower third of all democracies, in which
    India (rank 69 for 2008-2009) scores higher than
    Bangladesh (rank 78 for 2008-2009). Above all,
    India is characterized by scoring higher in the
    political and economic dimensions than in the
    dimensions gender equality, health, and knowledge
    (education). A special challenge for Indias
    democracy quality is whether the political system
    there will succeed in transferring the economic
    achievement to other areas, so that a wider
    population can participate in the economic
    development. This will co-decide on the mid-term
    and long-term sustainability of Indias
    democracy. In the case of Bangladesh, these
    inequalities between the different dimensions of
    political, economic and social development are
    not so large, although the economy in Bangladesh
    has developed less dynamically. On the other
    hand, the increase in democracy quality in
    Bangladesh is higher than in India during the
    last years (see the Democracy Improvement Ranking
    2010).

38
Democracy Ranking 2010 Empirical Results (11)
  • Russia and China Although Russia and China are
    classified by Freedom House as not free, Russia
    and China were included in the Democracy Ranking
    this year in order to show how these two
    countries would rank by using an appropriate
    formula. These virtual scores attest a low
    rating position 87 for Russia and 97 for China
    (before Nigeria and behind Zambia). Both of these
    countries score somewhat better for economic
    development and knowledge, but worse for health,
    and at the political dimension even
    catastrophically. Russia and China cannot be
    currently considered as normal democracies. It
    should be stressed that in spite of the economic
    appreciation of Chinas development, the
    political structures of this emerging economic
    super giant are by tendency authoritarian. What
    effect will this have for the future
    international system? A continuing
    democratization in both these countries will be
    extremely important, for domestic and
    geopolitical reasons. Viewed for the short term,
    a further democratization in Russia is perhaps
    even more realistic.

39
References
  • Campbell, David F. J. / Miklós Sükösd (eds.)
    (2002). Feasibility Study for a Quality Ranking
    of Democracies. Vienna Global Democracy Award
    (http//www.democracyranking.org/downloads/feasibi
    lity_study-letter-e-01.pdf).
  • Campbell, David F. J. (2008). The Basic Concept
    for the Democracy Ranking of the Quality of
    Democracy. Vienna Democracy Ranking
    (http//www.democracyranking.org/downloads/basic_c
    oncept_democracy_ranking_2008_letter.pdf).
  • Campbell, David F.J./ Thorsten D. Barth (2009)
    Wie können Demokratie und Demokratie-qualität
    gemessen werden? Modelle, Demokratie-Indices und
    Länderbeispiele im globalen Vergleich In
    SWS-Rundschau (49. Jg.) Heft 2/2009. S. 209233.
    (http//www.uni-klu.ac.at/wiho/downloads/campbell_
    u._barth-demokratiemessung-sws_rundschau-heft_2009
    _02-FINAL.pdf)
  • Campbell, David F. J. (2010). Key Findings
    (Summary Abstract) of the Democracy Ranking 2010
    and the Democracy Improvement Ranking 2010.
    Vienna Democracy Ranking (http//www.democracyran
    king.org/downloads/Key20findings20of20the20Dem
    ocracy20Ranking202010_letter.pdf).
  • Carayannis, Elias G. / David F. J. Campbell
    (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.
  • 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.
  • ODonnell, Guillermo (2004). Human Development,
    Human Rights, and Democracy, 9-92, in Guillermo
    ODonnell / Jorge Vargas Cullell / Osvaldo M.
    Iazzetta (eds.) The Quality of Democracy. Theory
    and Applications. Notre Dame, Indiana University
    of Notre Dame Press.
About PowerShow.com