Between Participation and Privatization: Social Planning in Four Italian Major Cities

Journal title SOCIOLOGIA E RICERCA SOCIALE
Author/s Dario Colombo, Enrico Gargiulo
Publishing Year 2014 Issue 2013/101
Language Italian Pages 22 P. 111-132 File size 660 KB
DOI 10.3280/SR2013-101005
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.

This article analyzes the social planning program contained in the programmatic documents of four major Italian cities: Genoa, Milan, Rome and Turin. These documents are explicitly aimed at facilitating the participation of the entire citizenry to decisions concerning social policy. Notwithstanding the intentions declared by the authors of the documents, the kind of participation promoted by the Plans seems to be reserved to a scarce number of stakeholders, rather than open to all citizens. This article aims to show how the rhetoric of participation contained in the documents analyzed, are not supported by adequate instruments for the involvement of the entire citizenry, and could ease the process of privatization of social policies

  1. M. Accorinti (2008), Terzo settore e welfare locale, Roma, Carocci.
  2. M. Albrow et al. (2008), Global Civil Society 2007/8. Communicative Power and Democracy,
  3. London, Sage. H.K Anheier (2005), Nonprofit Organizations: Theory, Management, Policy, London-New York, Routledge.
  4. H.K. Anheier, R.A. List (eds.) (2005), A Dictionary of Civil Society, Philanthropy and the Non-profit Sector, London-New York, Routledge.
  5. H. K. Anheier, L.M. Salamon (2006), The Nonprofit Sector in Comparative Perspective, in Powell e Steinberg (eds.) (2006).
  6. M. Bar, B. Gidron (eds.) (2010), Policy Initiatives Towards the Third Sector in International Perspective, New York, Springer.
  7. M. Barnes, J. Newman, H. Sullivan (2007), Power, Participation and Political Renewal. Case Studies in Public Participation, Bristol, The Policy Press.
  8. U. Bazant, S. Hegelich, K. Schubert (eds.) (2009), The Handbook of European Welfare Systems, London-New York, Routledge.
  9. L. Bifulco (2010), «Strumenti per la programmazione negoziale. I Piani sociali di zona e i Contratti di quartiere», Rivista italiana di politiche pubbliche, 2, pp. 31-57.
  10. L. Bifulco, L. Centemeri (2007), «La partecipazione nei Piani sociali di zona: geometrie variabili di governance locale», Stato e mercato, 80, pp. 221-44.
  11. L. Bobbio (2007), Amministrare con i cittadini. Viaggio tra le pratiche di partecipazione in Italia, Torino, Dipartimento di Studi politici dell’Università di Torino.
  12. L. Cataldi, E. Gargiulo (2011), «Partecipazione e programmazione sociale: i Tavoli tematici nei Piani di zona della Provincia di Torino», Tafter Journal, 34, aprile.
  13. P. Chanial, J-L. Laville (2004), French Civil Society Experiences: Attempts to Bridge the Gap between Political and Economic Dimensions, in A. Evers, J.-L. Laville (eds.), The Third Sector in Europe, Cheltenham-Northampton, Elgar.
  14. J. Clarke (2004), «Dissolving the Public Realm? The Logics and Limits of Neo-Liberalism», The Journal of Social Policy, 33, 1, pp. 27-48.
  15. E.S. Clemens (2006), The Constitution of Citizens: Political Theories of Nonprofit Organizations, in Powell e Steinberg (eds.) (2006).
  16. E. d’Albergo, G. Moini (2007), Il potenziale trasformativo delle pratiche participative: tre casi a confronto, in E. d’Albergo, G. Moini (a c. di), Partecipazione, movimenti e politiche pubbliche a Roma, Roma, Aracne.
  17. U. De Ambrogio (2004), Il piano di zona, in C. Gori (a c. di) (2004).
  18. G. Esping-Andersen (2010), Oltre lo stato assistenziale. Per un «patto tra generazioni», Milano, Garzanti.
  19. A. Etzioni (1973), «The Third Sector and Domestic Missions», Public Administration Review, 33, pp. 314-23.
  20. N. Fairclough, R. Wodak (1997), Critical Discourse Analysis, in Van Dijk (ed.) (1997).
  21. M. Foucault (1971), L’Ordre du discours, Paris, Gallimard.
  22. M. Geddes, P. Le Galès (2001), Local Partnerships, Welfare Regimes and Local Governance, in M. Geddes, J. Benington (eds.), Local Partnerships and Social Exclusion in the European Union, London, Routledge.
  23. F. Girotti (2002), Welfare state. Storia modelli e critica, Roma, Carocci.
  24. C. Gori (2004) (a c. di), La riforma dei servizi sociali in Italia. L’attuazione della legge 328 e le sfide future, Roma, Carocci.
  25. A. Gualdani (2004), La legge 328 dopo la riforma del Titolo V della Costituzione, in Gori (a c. di) (2004).
  26. S. Jäger (2001), Discourse and Knowledge: Theoretical and Methodological Aspects of a Critical Discourse and Dispositive Analysis, in R. Wodak, M. Meyer (eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, London, Sage.
  27. W.A. Maloney, J.W. van Deth (eds.) (2008), Civil Society and Governance in Europe: From National to International Linkages, Cheltenham-Northampton, Elgar G. Moini (2011), «Le pratiche partecipative nel contesto delle politiche neoliberiste», Rivista italiana di politiche pubbliche, 1, pp. 93-121.
  28. G. Moini (2012), Teoria critica della partecipazione. Un approccio sociologico, Milano, FrancoAngeli.
  29. S.P. Osborne (ed.) (2008), The Third Sector in Europe: Prospects and Challenges, London-New York, Routledge.
  30. M. Paci (a c. di) (2008), Welfare locale e democrazia partecipativa, Bologna, il Mulino.
  31. Y. Papadopoulos, P. Warin (2007), «Major Findings and Paths for Research: A Concluding Note», European Journal of Political Research, 46, 4, pp. 591-605.
  32. E. Pavolini (2003), Le nuove politiche sociali. I sistemi di welfare fra istituzioni e società civile, Bologna, il Mulino.
  33. P. Pierson (eds.) (2001), The New Politics of the Welfare State, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  34. E. Polizzi (2008), «Costruire le politiche sociali con la società civile. Piani di zona e partecipazione nella Provincia di Milano», Autonomie locali e servizi sociali, IV, 3, pp. 437-56.
  35. W.W. Powell, R. Steinberg (eds.) (2006), The Nonprofit Sector. A Research Handbook. Second Edition, New Haven-London, Yale University Press.
  36. C. Ranci (1999), Oltre il Welfare State, Bologna, il Mulino.
  37. G. Regonini (2005), «Paradossi della democrazia deliberativa», Stato e mercato, 73, pp. 3-31.
  38. P. Rosanvallon (1997), La nuova questione sociale. Ripensare lo stato assistenziale, Roma, Edizioni del lavoro.
  39. M. Seeleib-Kaiser (eds.) (2008), Welfare State Transformations. Comparative Perspectives, Basingstoke-New York, Palgrave MacMillan.
  40. T. Van Dijk (eds.) (1997), Discourse as Social Interaction, London, Sage.
  41. T. Van Dijk (1997), Discourse as Interaction in Society, in Van Dijk (ed.) (1997).
  42. T. Van Dijk (2004), Ideologie. Discorso e costruzione sociale del pregiudizio, Roma, Carocci.
  43. S. Vicari Haddock (2004), La città contemporanea, Bologna, il Mulino.
  44. M. Villa (2011), «Partecipazione del terzo settore versus partecipazione dei cittadini? Il nuovo welfare locale tra opportunità e contraddizioni sistemiche», Autonomie locali e servizi sociali, XVIII, pp. 3-19.
  45. M. Walzer (1992), Spheres of Justice, New York, Basic Books.
  46. B. Weisbrod (1988), The Nonprofit Economy, Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
  47. G. Weiss, R. Wodak (2003), Introduction: Theory, Interdisciplinarity and Critical Discourse Analysis, in G. Weiss, R. Wodak (eds.), Critical Discourse Analysis. Theory and Interdisciplinarity, New York, Palgrave e Macmillan.
  48. R. Wodak, M. Meyer (2009), Critical Discourse, Analysis, History, Agenda, Theory and Methodology, in R. Wodak, M. Meyer (eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, London, Sage, 2nd ed.

Dario Colombo, Enrico Gargiulo, Tra partecipazione e privatizzazione: i discorsi della programmazione sociale in quattro grandi città italiane in "SOCIOLOGIA E RICERCA SOCIALE " 101/2013, pp 111-132, DOI: 10.3280/SR2013-101005