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
Table of Contents




Conceptual Point of Departure
Sustainable Development:
A “Fourth” Dimension?
Conclusion:
Output and/or Input
References
2 of 30
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).
3 of 30
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).
4 of 30
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/con
cept_en.html).
5 of 30
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”.
6 of 30
Conceptual
Point of
Departure (5)
Source for Figure:
Campbell, 2008.
7 of 30
Conceptual Point
of Departure (5)

Guillermo O’Donnell defines quality of
democracy as an interplay
(interconnection) of “human rights” and
“human development”.
8 of 30
Conceptual Point
of Departure (6)
Source for Figure:
Campbell, 2008.
9 of 30
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”.
10 of 30
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”.
11 of 30
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).
12 of 30
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).
13 of 30
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.
14 of 30
Sustainable Development:
A “Fourth” Dimension? (3)
Source for Figure:
Campbell & Carayannis,
2013.
15 of 30
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.
16 of 30
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.
17 of 30
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).
18 of 30
Sustainable Development:
A “Fourth” Dimension? (7)

Particularly for a global comparison of
democracies (democracies, semidemocracies 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.
19 of 30
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.
20 of 30
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?
21 of 30
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.
22 of 30
Conclusion:
Output and/or Input (3)
Source for Figure:
Campbell, 2008.
23 of 30
Conclusion:
Output
and/or
Input (4)
Source for Figure:
Campbell, 2012.
24 of 30
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 (“capabilityenhancing basic conditions”) for
freedom and equality (and control).
25 of 30
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”.
26 of 30
Conclusion:
Output
and/or
Input (7)
Source for Figure:
Campbell, 2013.
27 of 30
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.
28 of 30
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%2F9781-4614-3858-8_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.
29 of 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.
30 of 30