Social innovations and street-level bureaucracies: the governance of housing squats in Rome

Journal title TERRITORIO
Author/s Margherita Grazioli
Publishing Year 2022 Issue 2021/99
Language English Pages 6 P. 67-72 File size 134 KB
DOI 10.3280/TR2021-099010
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

As the aftermath of the 2008 financial crash has caused a spike in housing vulnerability, squatting for housing purposes has gained a new momentum in Rome (Italy). If national laws like the Article 5 of the 2014 Housing Plan have pursued the eradication of the phenomenon, local districts have often adopted a more dialoguing approach towards the squatters and Housing Rights Movements to de-escalate the social exclusion it undergirds. Dwelling upon activist-ethnographic materials, this paper combines the social innovation theory with the framework of street-level bureaucracies to critically appreciate whether the initiatives activated by local administrators and social welfare practitioners in cooperation with the Housing Rights Movements in Rome can configure durable social innovations.

Keywords: housing squats; street level bureaucracies; Rome

  1. Asara V., 2019, «The Redefinition and Co-Production of Public Services by Urban Movements. The Can Batlló Social Innovation in Barcelona». PArte- cipazione COnflitto, 12, 2: 539-565.
  2. Aviram N.F., Beeri I., Cohen N., 2021, «From the Bottom-Up: Probing the Gap Between Street-Level Bureaucrats’ Intentions of Engaging in Policy Entrepreneurship and Their Behavior». The American Review of Public Administration, 51, 8: 636-649. DOI: 10.1177/02750740211023597.
  3. Blanco I., Nel·lo O., 2017, «L’Innovazione Sociale Può Essere la Risposta? Il Ruolo dell’Azione dei Cittadini in un Contesto di Crescente Polarizzazione Sociale». Territorio, 83: 7-16.
  4. Blomley N., 2020, «Urban Commoning and the Right Not to be Excluded». In: Özkan D., Baykal Büyüksaraç G. (eds.), Commoning the City. Empir- ical Perspectives on Urban Ecology, Economics and Ethics. London-New York: Routledge, 89-103.
  5. Boni S., Koensler A., Rossi A., 2020, Etnografie Militanti: Prospettive e Dilemmi. Milano: Meltemi.
  6. Bosi L., Zamponi L., 2015, «Direct Social Actions and Economic Crises: The Relationship between Forms of Action and Socio-Economic Con- text in Italy». PArtecipazione COnflitto, 8, 2: 367-391.
  7. Brodkin E.Z., 2011, «Putting Street-Level Organization first: New Directions for Social Policy and Management Research». Jpart, 21, 2: i199-i201.
  8. Cacciotti C., 2020, «When squatting becomes ‘stable precarity’. The case of Santa Croce/Spin Time Labs, Rome». Visual Ethnography, 9, 2: 13-31.
  9. Caciagli C., 2022, Housing Movements in Rome. Resistance and Class. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan.
  10. Coppola A., Punziano G., 2018, eds., Roma in Transizione. Governo, strategie, metabolismi e quadri di vita di una metropoli (vol. 1 & 2). Roma: Planum Publisher.
  11. De Leo D., 2022, «Roma: Fra Trattenere e Dissipare Capitale». In: Urban@ it, Centro nazionale di Studi per le Politiche Urbane (eds.), Settimo Rapporto sulle città. Chi possiede la città? Proprietà, poteri, politiche. Bologna: Il Mulino, 149-166.
  12. De Weerdt J., Garcia M., 2016, «Housing Crisis: The Platform of Mortgage Victims (pah) Movement in Barcelona and Innovations in Governan- ce». Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 31: 471-493.
  13. Di Feliciantonio C., 2017, «Spaces of the Expelled as Spaces of the Urban Commons? Analysing the Re-emergence of Squatting Initiatives in Rome». International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 41, 5: 708-725. DOI: 10.1111/1468-2427.12513
  14. Di Noto I., 2020, «La Città Pubblica (R)Esiste!». Crítica Urbana, 3, 12: 8-12. Domaradzka A., 2018, «Urban Social Movements and the Right to the City: An Introduction to the Special Issue on Urban Mobilization». Voluntas, 29, 607-620.
  15. Fregolent L., Nel·lo O., 2021, «Introduction: Social Change, Political Discontent, and Urban Movements in Southern European Cities». In: Fregolent L., Nel·lo O. (eds.), Social Movements and Public Policies in Southern European Cities. Cham: Springer, 1-14.
  16. García Cabeza M., Cano-Hila A.B., Pradel-Miquel M., 2020, «Social In- novation in Southern European cities: Local Governance and Citizen Practices – Spanish Cities as an Illustration». In: Pradel-Miquel M., Cano-Hila A., García Cabeza M. (eds.), Social Innovation and Urban Governance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 1-24.
  17. Gargiulo E., 2020, Appartenenze precarie. La residenza tra inclusione ed esclusione. Torino: utet.
  18. Gerometta J., Haüssermann H., Longo G., 2005, «Social Innovation and Civil Society in Urban Governance: Strategies for an Inclusive City». Urban Studies, 42, 11: 2007-2021. DOI: 10.1080/00420980500279851
  19. Gnolfo F., Iannace A., Scardala S., 2021, «Emergenza sanitaria e violenza simbolica. Etnografie della rassegnazione nelle esperienze di medicina di prossimità». In: idos (ed.), Osservatorio delle Migrazioni a Roma e nel Lazio. xvi Rapporto. Roma: idos, 186-191.
  20. Graeber D., 2009, Direct Action: An Ethnography. Chico (ca): ak Press.
  21. Grazioli M., 2021a, Metropoliz, città meticcia. Storia militante di un’occupazione abitativa. Roma: RedStar Press.
  22. Grazioli M., 2021b, «No Health Without Housing: Rome’s Urban Squat- ters in the Pandemic». -- www.therealestate.space/dossier/project- two-8sgsn-3zkhr-sd4nf-pdxwt-6jatc-rb7gm-lxj72-4azfe (access: 2022.03.18).
  23. Horowitz S., 2021, Mutualism. Building the Next Economy from the Ground Up. New York: Random House.
  24. Leontidou L., 2010, «Urban Social Movements in ‘Weak’ Civil Societies: The Right to the City and Cosmopolitan Activism in Southern Europe». Urban Studies, 47, 6: 1179-1203. DOI: 10.1177/0042098009360239
  25. Lipsky M., 1980, Street-level Bureaucracy. Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services (ed. 2010). New York: Russel Sage Foundation.
  26. Montagna N., Grazioli M., 2020, «Oltre l’accoglienza. Migrazioni, lotta per la casa e beni comuni a Roma». Studi Emigrazione, 220: 618-635.
  27. Mudu P., 2014, «Ogni Sfratto Sarà Una Barricata: Squatting for Housing and Social Conflct in Rome». In: Squatting Europe Kollective (eds.), Squatters’ Movement in Europe: Commons and Autonomy as Alterna-tives to Capitalism. London: Pluto Press, 136-163.
  28. Ostanel E., 2021, «Can Social Innovation Transform Local Governments? The Experience of Naples». In: Fregolent L., Nel·lo O. (eds.), Social Movements and Public Policies in Southern European Cities. Cham: Springer, 137-150.
  29. Peck J., 2012, «Austerity Urbanism». City, 16, 6: 626-655. DOI: 10.1080/13604813.2012.734071
  30. Petmesidou M., 2018, «Southern Europe». In: Greve B. (ed.), Routledge Handbook of the Welfare State. Second Edition. Oxon-New York: Rout- ledge, 162-175.
  31. Puccini E., 2016, Verso una politica della casa. Dall’emergenza abitativa romana ad un nuovo modello nazionale. Roma: Ediesse.
  32. Purcell M., 2006, «Urban Democracy and the Local Trap». Urban Studies, 43, 11: 1921-1941. DOI: 10.1080/00420980600897826
  33. Saruis T., 2013, «La teoria della street level bureaucracy: lo stato del dibattito». Autonomie Locali e Servizi sociali, 3: 541-552. DOI: 10.1447/76209
  34. Saruis T., 2018, «Street-Level Workers’ Discretion in the Changing Welfare». Cambio, 8, 16: 31-42.
  35. Seixas J., Brito Guterres A., 2021, «The Reconfiguration of Urban Move- ments and Politics in Lisbon». In: Fregolent L., Nel·lo O. (eds), Social Movements and Public Policies in Southern European Cities. Cham: Springer Nature, 167-179.
  36. Self Made Urbanism Rome (smur), 2014, eds., Roma città autoprodotta. Ricerca urbana e linguaggi artistici. Roma: manifestolibri.
  37. Spade D., 2020, Mutual Aid. Building Solidarity During This Crisis (and the Next). London-New York: Verso Books.
  38. Thorén K.H., 2008, ‘Activation Policy in Action’. A Street-Level Study of Social Assistance in the Swedish Welfare State. Göteborg: Växjö University Press.
  39. Vasudevan A., 2015, «The Makeshift City: Towards a Global Geography of Squatting». Progress in Human Geography, 39, 3: 338-359. DOI: 10.1177/0309132514531471
  40. Vitale V., 2009, «Socialità, mobilitazione e innovazione sociale nelle città europee». In: Anomale G. (ed.), Il dire e il fare: volontari creativi per il bene comune. Milano: Bine Editore, 11-21.

  • “Batti il 5!”: Grassroots Strategies Against the Administrative Invisibilization of Rome’s Housing Squatters Before and During the Pandemic Margherita Grazioli, in Radical Housing Journal /2022 pp.31
    DOI: 10.54825/WQAH3246

Margherita Grazioli, Social innovations and street-level bureaucracies: the governance of housing squats in Rome in "TERRITORIO" 99/2021, pp 67-72, DOI: 10.3280/TR2021-099010