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.