Global Democracy Ranking Project on Quality 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@uni-klu. ac. at barth. thorsten@arcor. de Democracy Ranking http: //www. democracyranking. org/en/ Presentation: November 30, 2011
Table of Contents n n Conceptual Dimensions for: Democracy Measurement Comparison of Democracy Measurement Initiatives Democracy Ranking 2010: Empirical Results & World Maps References 2 von 39
Conceptual Dimensions for: Democracy Measurement (1) n The literature distinguishes in conceptual terms often between the following “dimensions” of democracy: n n n Freedom Equality (equity) “Control” (? ) “Self-organization” (? ) (for example, political swings, government-opposition-cycles) “Sustainable Development” 3 von 39
Conceptual Dimensions for: Democracy Measurement (2) n How “focused” or how “broad” (comprehensive) should democracy be conceptualized? n n 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”? ). 4 von 39
Conceptual Dimensions for: Democracy Measurement (3) n “Electoral democracy” (election-based concepts) versus “liberal democracy” versus “high-quality (liberal) democracy”? 5 von 39
Conceptual Dimensions for: Democracy Measurement (4) n Key characteristics (minimum standards) of the “electoral democracy” are (according to Freedom House): n n (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”. 6 von 39
Conceptual Dimensions for: Democracy Measurement (5) n n 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). 7 von 39
Conceptual Dimensions for: Democracy Measurement (6) n n 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? n n n 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? 8 von 39
Conceptual Dimensions for: Democracy Measurement (7) n Robert Dahl (1971) distinguished between two key dimensions of democracy: n n n Participation; Contestation (competition). Larry Diamond and Leonardo Morlino (2004) identify already eight key dimensions for the quality of democracy: n n (1) (2) (3) (4) rule of law; participation; competition; vertical accountability; 9 von 39
Conceptual Dimensions for: Democracy Measurement (8) n n (5) (6) (7) (8) horizontal accountability; freedom; equality; responsiveness. 10 von 39
Conceptual Dimensions for: Democracy Measurement (9) 11 von 39
Conceptual Dimensions for: Democracy Measurement (10) n Guillermo O’Donnell defines the quality of democracy in the following way: n Quality of Democracy = (human rights) & (human development). 12 von 39
Conceptual Dimensions for: Democracy Measurement (11) 13 von 39
Comparison of Democracy Measurement Initiatives (1) n Three democracy measurement initiatives in comparison: n n n Freedom House (http: // www. freedomhouse. org) Democracy Index (http: // www. eiu. com/index. asp? rf=0) Democracy Ranking (http: // www. democracyranking. org/en) 14 von 39
Comparison of Democracy Measurement Initiatives (2) n Freedom House: n n “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. 15 von 39
Comparison of Democracy Measurement Initiatives (3) n Democracy Index: n n n “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”. 16 von 39
Comparison of Democracy Measurement Initiatives (4) n Global Democracy Ranking of the Quality of Democracy: 17 von 39
Comparison of Democracy Measurement Initiatives (5) n Democracy Ranking: n n “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 midterm perspective). 18 von 39
Comparison of Democracy Measurement Initiatives (6) 19 von 39
Comparison of Democracy Measurement Initiatives (7) n Democracy Ranking: is being based on six dimensions and their specific indicator assignments. 20 von 39
Comparison of Democracy Measurement Initiatives (8) n 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). 21 von 39
Comparison of Democracy Measurement Initiatives (9) n 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. 22 von 39
Comparison of Democracy Measurement Initiatives (10) n Democracy Ranking: n n n 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 19981999; Full Democracy Rankings are now available for the index years 2008, 2009 and 2010; Newer Democracy Rankings re-compute earlier Democracy Rankings; 23 von 39
Comparison of Democracy Measurement Initiatives (11) n n n 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: n To be categorized by Freedom House as “free” or at least “partly free”; n 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). 24 von 39
Democracy Ranking 2010: Empirical Results (1) n Democracy Ranking 2010: top ranking countries (democracies). 25 von 39
Democracy Ranking 2010: Empirical Results (2) n Democracy Ranking 2010: bottom ranking countries (democracies). 26 von 39
Democracy Ranking 2010: Empirical Results (3) n Democracy Improvement Ranking 2010: top ranking countries (democracies). 27 von 39
Democracy Ranking 2010: Empirical Results (4) n 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 Europe’s democracies will influence and support the endurance of the European integration and of the EU. 31 von 39
Democracy Ranking 2010: Empirical Results (5) n 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 EU 15 or EU 27. 32 von 39
Democracy Ranking 2010: Empirical Results (6) n 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. 33 von 39
Democracy Ranking 2010: Empirical Results (7) n 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. 34 von 39
Democracy Ranking 2010: Empirical Results (8) n 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. 35 von 39
Democracy Ranking 2010: Empirical Results (9) n 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. 36 von 39
Democracy Ranking 2010: Empirical Results (10) n 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 India’s 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 India’s 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). 37 von 39
Democracy Ranking 2010: Empirical Results (11) n 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 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 China’s 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. 38 von 39
References n n n n 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/feasibility_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_concept_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. 209– 233. (http: //www. uniklu. 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. democracyranking. org/downloads/Key%20 findings%20 of%20 the%20 Democracy%20 Ranking%202010_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. 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. 39 von 39
Скачать презентацию Global Democracy Ranking Project on Quality of Democracy
f9b11dbc6c45abdad800c643669ef63b.ppt