• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Dividing or Combining Citizens. The Politics of Active Citizenship in Italy ( This is my preferred sub-title. Second best: People, Place and Politics in the Making of Active Citizenship in Italy) Regional welfare regimes in contemporary Italy Ota de Leonardis In J. Newman, E. Tonkens, eds., , Active citizenship and the modernisation of social welfare, Amsterdam University Press

Milano, 23th July 2009

9296 Ota – we have done quite a lot of editing to your chapter, using TRACK. Please can you look at what we have done and accept or reject the changes – they are mostly to get greater clarity and to shorten the word length, but sometimes we may have misrepresented your meaning.

We also think there are too many footnotes and wonder if any could be cut – we have already reduced the overall number, both cutting a couple and incorporting some into the tex.t , but others could probably go.

The only substantive issue is that while in the introduction you talk about ‘unstable combninations’ and processes trhough which crystalisations are beginning to occur, the chapter presents two very clearly distinct regimes. Is this OK, or do you want to return to instability – or at least the crystalisation point - at the end?

Otherwise there are quite a few bibliographic queries to be resolved , mainly in the text (missing dates, page numbers). words

1. Active citizenship from politics to policy During the “trente glorieux” following WWII, the Italian welfare system developed along two different lines in Italy. In the firstOn the one hand,In the first, the influence of political cultures and practices imbued with particularist tendencies and even patronage meant only a weak adherence togave a weak sign of deference to universalistic principles in in the form of equally weak social benefits and a system of public service provisions which was just as weak. As a consequence,

1 families - particularly women - went on bearing the greater burden of caring for their members in need, so conferring on the Italian welfare system a familist nature. A central role was also played by private charities and church bodies, partly because of the cultural and political influence of the Catholic Church. These features, that characterized mainly theof social, that have been highlighted mainly in the sector of service provision,ocial services, suggest thatform the basis of the thesis according to which the Italian welfare systemthe Italian welfare system, should not, be categorized as situated by Esping Anderson in the “corporatist” by (as Esping-Anderseon, would have it), has in fact greater affinities with burthe rather as welfare model, has really greater affinities with the “Mediterranean” model model (Ferrera 1996, Mingione 2001).

Hoever,But a second, and equally important, line of developmentOn the other hand, other equally important aspects introduced in the same period , configureding a welfare regime “of rights” consistent with the universalistic model., forge a second line of development. I refer here to normative innovations that were promoted bythat were translated into social claims and political mobilizations, as well as of what would now be termedto “practices of active citizenship,”. in the terms of today. In that period Italy was marked by a high level of politicization, a strong communist party, trades unions playing an important role even inregarding welfare issues, widespread and diverse social movements (not least women’s liberation), the mobilisation of public service staffservice operators, and a myriad of local initiatives and bottom-up experiments 1. Three building blocks of an universalist welfare were introduced: (i)a) the Workers’ Statute (1971) that not only established rights linked to employment status, but also allowed work to be recognised as a right in itself; (ii)b) new legislation on mental healthThe law (1978) in the mental health sector that accomplished fifteen years of de-institutionalisation and the invention of new services, and abolisheding internment in psychiatric hospitals, the , that accomplishment ofed a fifteen years long practices of de-institutionalisation and the invention of new services; and which led to a more general orientation mood against total institutions and for in favor of granting civil and social rights also for the disabled and children; and (iii) c) the health reform instituting the National Health Service, in 1980..

When theHowever by the time Right athe fter the establishment of the National Health Service was stablished was establishedin 1980, the situation was already undwas undergoingergoing rapid change:changed rapidly change; the above-mentioned social forces were exhausted, and the “crisis

1 Those years also saw the introduction of divorce and legalization of abortion, both in the wake of strong social mobilisation.

2 of the welfare state” was officially inaugurated. A phase of “reforming reforms” began. Throughout the 1990s, the discourses and practices of welfare re-organization were generally steered by criticisms against paternalism and welfare dependencye and directed towardsat giving citizens an active role. “Activation” —in its various meanings — became a key word in Italy as well as in other states, and directed the efforts of Italian governments during the 1990s to respond to the requirements for entering the European Union. These efforts produced were translated into a) an important cycle of administrative reforms, inspired by the model of New Public Management that introduced principles of responsiveness of public administrations towards citizens. It also led to ; b) a national law on social welfare in 2000, providing devices for the “activation” of recipients and for “participation” in local policy governance. A third set of reforms were heralded in the ; and, c) newa reform of the Italian Constitution ofin 2001, which introduced the where the principle of subsidiarity. Subsidiarity was was introduced: both vertical, which entrussttsing many social responsibilities to local levels of government, considered “closer” to citizens; and horizontal, which enhancinges the self-organizing potential of civil society. Public institutions, as the new Article 118 stateds, have the task of “favouring the autonomous initiative of citizens, single and associated, to perform activities of general interest, on the basis of the principle of subsidiarity.” These changes revealed a strong impulse to promote active citizenship in the relationships between citizens and institutions. Welfare policies constitute the main laboratory in which these principles were enactedare recalled and translated, in both the governance and the organization of services. I, and it iss especially here that active citizenship is most strongly developed and expressed. In the re-organization of welfare, which in Italy is based on aadopts the model of a welfare mix between State, market and civil society, it is c. , the latter, with the name ofCivil society, termed theor rather, the “third sector”, which was is appointed to be thea central actor in policy design and implementation.

These reforms mean that expressions of aActive citizenship are now very appearsturns out altogether different from what was being expressed in the political mobilisation and bottom-up initiatives ofbelonging to the 1970s. In the present discourses, and in the forms of organization and practices of active citizenship, a shift can be easily identifiedregistered in policy arenas from political participation to civic involvement2 . Militant politics have been replaced by volunteering in some sort of service provision of some sort; taking part in citizen organizations is no longernow less expressed as much throughvia the repertoires of contentious politics (Tilly, Tarrow, 2006), as than by way of involvement in the local governance of welfare policies;. iI; initiatives aimed at constructing services from the from the bottom-up new services have given way to “social

2 This shift was also notably influenced by the crisis in the Italian political system following the 1992 Bribesville scandal, which on the whole de-legitimized politics in general. 3 entrepreneurship”3. An important questionissue here is how far it is possible to recognise which that would need facing to be faced is if in these new forms of active citizenship the success of those past claims for broadening and strengthening political citizenship in these new forms of active citizenshipcan be recognized; or whetherif instead they are the fruit of the incorporation and neutralization of such claims within the “new spirit of capitalism” as Boltanski and Chiappello maintain (Boltanski, Chiappello 1999; see also Tonkens, this volumein this book), so that they are made consistent with the liberal idea of self-organization of a civil society. A clear and unequivocal answer to this questionissue cannot be given, since, ass emerges from the research below illustratesd, below, local contexts are different, policy arenas are shaped differently, and different ways of becoming active citizens – with different repertoires of action and relative grammars of justification - can be observed. Above all, as I have already saidMoreover, the ground for research looks somewhat like a laboratory, in which active citizenship continues to beis in the makinge throes, so to say, of being constructed, p. P, processes are still open and at best research can only suggest the best tendencies. alone emerge.

WhateveTrAnyway, the three types of active citizenship illustrated in the introduction to the volume (see Newman, Tonkens, Chapter 1…) can be easily recognised and they will recur during the course of this chapter: the citizen as consumer (service recipient) will appear, as will just like the citizen as entrepreneur (“social” entrepreneur as well as “entrepreneur of him/herself”). A; also appearing will be citizens as responsible individuals/families, or more precisely made “responsible for the autonomous production of the required services” ( and similar updated forms of familialism will occur). AndIt will be shown that in certain policy contexts the active role of citizens – especially as service recipients – is expressed throughin voice and participation in the decisions on the services concerning them. This, which is the political version of active citizenship.

These different expressions of active citizenship are combined in different ways. The research I draw from will show that tThe combinations still keepare mostly unstable, in Italy, butthough I will show how some are tending to crystallize in two regional welfare regimes. , and fragments of the crystallizations will take form in the course of what follows. Attention will be focussed on service recipients, their position in the policy arenas, and the repertoires they have for exercising an active role.e and the ir typologies. In particular, since we are observing the field of welfare, where the weakest voiceless citizens are most concentrated—“silenced subjects,” as they were once called — special attention willmust be paid to the position they assume in policy arenas where active citizenship is promoted. Therefore, questions on if, how and whenDoes the spread of active

3 In Italy this refers in particular to ”social enterprise”, an appellation, like the even wider-embracing “non-profit” that covers various strategies and rationales. 4 citizenship is oriented to involve the weakest citizens and empower them,, and if so, how and when? appear to be especially relevant here.Are the

It is therefore by observing recipient citizens – and in primis the weakest - that I propose to work on this issue, and also follow the line suggested by the editors: to see if in the different practices of active citizenship in the field of welfare, the weakest recipients are involved in choices or are they disciplined by subjugation? Do ; if such practices of active citizenship tend to generate and extend spaces for citizen participation politically ( in forms both of conflict and co-operation), or if instead forms ofdo they silenceing political subjectivity are put in place?.

From this exploration there will emerge an important problem, will emerge precisely at the junction between citizens as welfare recipients and their interlocutors as service providers- , they too often themselves active citizens too. This junction needs to be put under close observation to allow an enquiry into the relations created by the exercise of active citizenshipWhat kind of relations are created between citizens, particularly between these two types of active citizens?. The impression I will try to give body and evidence to, precisely by looking at the weakest, is I will argue that within practices of active citizenship, the a dynamics of expansion and inclusion (or vice versaconversely, those of division and selection) takes shape within the practices of active citizenship; and I will also argue that processes of the work of disciplining, silencing and subjugation takes place between citizens, just as do vice versa the processes through whichof collective supports are created to help theforof the most disadvantaged in order to make their voice heard.4. But, as will be shown the position and action of public institutions are not extraneous to the construction of these two different dynamics: rather, it is through the interface between public institutionsservices and citizens that new formations of active citizenship are translated and enacted. .

2. New welfare policies and active citizenship. A view from the recipients perspective

Research carried out over years on the re-organization of welfare in Italy has highlighted significant differences between the regions5. The introduction -, also at a constitutional level -, of vertical subsidiarity and the subsequent de-centralizationdevolution of welfare policies, which have

4 The reference, as I will say, is to the “capability for voice” in the framework of Sen’s capability approach. 5 This research was carried out within the framework of the Research Centre Sui Generis on Sociology of Public Action at the University of Milano Bicocca. The most systematic part of the research focused on Lombardy and the regions of Friuli-Venezia Giulia and Campania. Some of the more limited research themes were also applied to local contexts in other regions. A follow up on welfare and job insertion policies in these two regions is under way in the framework of the CAPRIGHT European Project. 5 now become the responsibility ofto regional governments, hasve brought about the emergence of different regional welfare models. These regional differences between regions which this devolution is creating concern the levels and modes of recognizing citizens’ social rights as well as means of promoting their agency. With the regional devolution of social protection disparity is created between citizens belonging to different regions – even in terms of rights. Yet it must be admitted that itRegional differences, then, This offers a fertile ground for comparative research into welfare systems in general and for what concerns us here - the ways in which active citizens are involved: a ground that is meaningful in an investigation into the differentces between ways in which how active citizenship is being constructed. in different regional ( and local) welfare regimes. And in order to work on the above issues. The research framework. The research I am drawing on investigated how the need to activate citizens has been translated into social/health-care and social housing policies in several regions, . Investigation was carried out both into the level of governance, in which the citizens are is involved in policy making, and the level of service provision, – where citizens are supposed to be active service recipients besidesand being providers–care takers. Taking for example I focus on the two regional casesregions of Lombardy and Friuli-Venezia Giulia, two distinctly different welfare regimes emerge, where active citizenship takes on very different profiles. From the comparison between these two regional cases which we have developed and are still working on, a very rich material for analysis emerges for investigating the differences in the forms active citizenship takes in different welfare regimes. More precisely we have investigated the normative instruments in regional welfare policies that aim at promoting an active role in citizens, allocating resources, summoning competences, stimulating coordinating and organizing processes, etc. And we have analyzed both how such instruments have been designed ( especially the vocabulary used to define problems and solutions) and how they have been implemented, interpreted and used by the actors involved in a policy arena, including active citizens. We have thereforeThe analysis follows the approach based on policy is adopted the approach to public action based on the instruments for public action analysis developed by Lascumes and Le Galès (2004, 2007). The choice of investigating “governing through instruments” is appropriate for the analysis of the role of active citizens in the present by and large neo-liberal forms of governing “at a distance”, a form of governing that does not intervene authoritatively but rather makes (or lets) “the actors do”, involving them in the policy arena (see also Newman and, Clarke, 2009). ; and it is all the more appropriate if it is a case of seeing what active citizens do. This focuses attention on We theanalyse how thTherefore, it must be added that looking at active citizenship from this perspective, the ways in which citizens get moving and organize themselves, how they , are investigated not by

6 themselves but embedded within policy arenas, and in order to see how such ways take form within situations/ “in situation”, and what their organizational effects might be (Bifulco et al., 2007. See also Barnes, Newman, Sullivan, 2007, especially chapter 4)they give place toare6. I We focus on two types ofypes of activation instruments. The firstn Among the instruments for activating citizens in the welfare fields examined in this research, focus will be placed on the following types: a) – following a those using the contract prototype typical of marketised welfare - which confers on citizens the status of partners in their relations with institutions or other citizens. Here (section 3) – as typically in the models of marketized welfare. Nevertheless, we will see that the contract prototype iscan be translated into diverse policy instruments and gives rise to diverse forms of citizen activation. The second type of activation we highlight concerns ; b) theose activation ofng citizens as belonging to a territory (see also Neveu, this volume). In section 4 : we will be exploreing the “space” of citizenship, its constituent anchorage that tiesying it to a territory. We will , and observeing the process of territorialization of welfare policies, at the intersection between “place and people” (Donzelot, 2006) and . And we will be discovering diverse configurations of in the relation linking citizens and to their territory.

3. Contractualized welfare policies: active citizens as recipients or providers of services.

The process of externalizing services and creating welfare mixes – , which generally a key characteristic ofcharacteristic forzes the re-organisation of welfare in Italy – has been, is accompanied bys the spread of contractsual formulas for regulating both public/private partnerships at the governance level of governance, and the relations between citizen-users and services at the level of service provision. Such These services, too, which are mostly provided by the so-called “third sector”, are supposedlysupposed to be the expression of an organised civil society. MyI’ll focus here is on the level of service provision, which is where recipient-citizens and citizen providers meet, and therefore where those the critical issues concerning active citizenship, I have already mentioned, arise7.. The cContractualisation of The processes for contracting service relationships offers a fertile ground of enquiry for tackling the question of how far active citizenship opens upthe dynamics of disciplineing and exclusionding, or of of developing support for the active exercise of citizens’ rights. DoesThe issue is if the definition of recipients and providers as partners in a contract changees th between them – and how - the asymmetry of power, intrinsic to the service relationship?.

6 Bifulco et al., 2007. See also Barnes, Newman, Sullivan, 2007, especially chapter 4th. 7 Unfortunately, I can’t analyse here how contractualization works on the governance level, even if this would be relevant to the arguments developped in this chapter (and in this book more generally), especially regarding different versions of citizens’ “participation” which take shape on this level. 7 To deal with this issueanswer that question, we will examine two different but comparable contractual arrangements of service provision introduced in Lombardy and Friuli respectively: the “voucher” and the “budget for care”. Both are core instruments in the welfare policies characterising the two regions, and reveal some crucial basic differences between them. BIn both cases it is a question ofconcern monetary transfers destined particularly designed for “weak subjects” – the elderly, the disabled, mental health service userspatients – with the objective of sin order to supporting them them so that they mayto remain in their home environment contexts and avoid being institutionalisationzed. In both cases the public health and/or social authority designs a contract is set up is set up between the user and the third sector organization delegated to provide the service by the public health and/or social authority. However, the voucher and budget for care are designed in different ways. They and create two different kinds of service organisation organizations of the service provided and two different active beneficiary positions (Monteleone 2005, 2007; Bifulco, Vitale 2006; Giorgi, Polizzi 2007). The voucher is a coupon for acquiring social and healthcare services given by the public authority to the citizen-user, who is free to choose one of the accredited private suppliers who are in competition copmpeting with one aneach tother. In the Lombard welfare model – which in Italy represents the most extreme neo-liberal version of the re-organization of welfare - it acts as a strategic lever for : a) reducing public services to a residual role by externalizing the supply of services to private officially non-profit organizations (and qualified as initiatives of the civil society). It ; b) is based on a market model of freeing the dynamics of self-regulating processes of on between the supply and demand, with active citizens being of services, by building social markets able to in which active citizens can express on one sidethe one hand their freedom of choice as recipient-consumers, and on the other their freedom to generate newgive vent to economic initiatives as providers. L; c) last but not least, the Lombardy model promotesing “responsible citizenship”. T: the family -(always written in the singular in normative texts!- ) is given a central role in the “autonomous production of services”. In this scenario, the contract for using the voucher , being stipulated between the supplier and the consumer, corresponds to the prototype of the buying-selling contract on the market. It is therefore of a private, rather than public, nature.

“Budget for care” is a typical policy instrument in the Friuli welfare regime. Friuugili, which is noted for itsheld up by a strong culturepatrimony of public service provisions and for theconcentrates on their “territorialization’ of services in”, and taking root in local communities. Always at a local level, it supports the third sector organizations, but with a fairly restrictive form of

8 regulation that encouragesing collaboration with public services, finalizing it in order to a strengthening of the social protection of individuals. The aim of citizen activation is geared to weaker citizens and is defined as “creating opportunities” for the growth of “possible autonomy”. TIt needs to be added that these traits of the Friuli welfare regime are most evident in the health sector, where a patrimony of technical and institutional innovations were realised and released during the course of de-institutionalization in the psychiatric servicesfield, with the closure of asylums and the creation of territorially based services to take their place. The Friuli Region was the cradle of this transformation and of the social pressure that promoted it, and it is the region where the national law legalizing it has been most fully implemented (De Leonardis, 2006). TNot least, the guiding idea principle behind these transformations – promoting asylum inmates as “protagonists” – has left a sign in the focussingits mark in the focus on the weakest recipients and in the ways of understanding their agency and freedom.

Budget-for-care is an item in the public social and health-care budget that citizen-users may use for the care project they choose to pursue. The contract stipulating use involves three partners: the citizen-user, the third sector provider and the local territorial public authority responsible for the citizen’s well-being. The public authoritythird partner plays a strategic role in the contract, as he supportings the citizen-user (i.e. the weaker contracting party) via the system of public services. he is responsible for. The public authorityHe, attributes the budget to the third sector provider and monitors the compliance of the contract. The involvement of this public authority therebythird partner confers a public nature on the contract.8

Budget- for- care binds the contracting parties to a “personalized project for care and re- habilitation” of the user. Such a project involves changes in the living conditions of the citizen- user relative to three “axes”: “home, work and social life”. Through this contract, the public authority binds the third sector provider to operate in the interests direction of all three. Therefore the provider is charged with held to pursuinge the improvement of housing conditions (“the quality of social habitat”) of the person involved; , and to increase his/hertheirin chances of work , or at least of to conducting an active life; and to . The provider must also see to enriching their network of personal relationships/acquaintances. It follows that the subject matter of the contract is very different from the one underpinningtreated in the voucher system. In the lattervoucher system, in fact, the contract is aboutconcerns a package of social-healthcare services at home, corresponding to a standard assignment record. The object of

8 Issues about privatization or publicness of service governance and about what the notion of “public” refers to, were discussed in Bifulco et al. 2006. Also see Newman, 2005, Newman, Clarke, 2009, Cefai, Pasquier, 2003, and Neveu, this volumein this book. 9 the transaction in the voucher system concerns is sto enhance the performance in this case to be provided, of provicders,performance 9 , while with the care budget it concerns changes in the invested in these three components of the individuals’ well-being of individuals - what counts are the results obtained in all three.

Let us now take a look at how the two types of contract shapegive form to the service relations between recipients and providers. The focus in particular is on s, in order to see detectwhat changes in tchanges to the he asymmetry of power between them, bearingkeeping in mind that it could be more marked, in that the recipients in both cases are weak subjects, and . Keeping in mind, too, that both partners in these relations are supposed to be active citizens. In the service relationship as organized by theWith the voucher, the agency of recipients is grounded based on their freedom to choose a service provider and draw up with him/her a contract which equates them to market consumers with the . In conformity with this position as consumers, which recognizes a “negative freedom” of exit (Hirschman 1970): , they always have the power to change suppliers (of pre-packaged services) in a supposedly competiative market which should be competitive. It Adopting Hirshman’s typology of the options that individuals have at their disposal in relationships with organizations, we may say that this kind of citizen-as-consumer has an “exit” option (Hirschman 1970). But it turns out that the exit option is seldom usedout to be little used, and then and when it is, it is distributed unequally among beneficiaries, favouringmostly by citizens those with a stronger socio-economic background. Are Are all the others “satisfied customers” 10? The evidence we have collected shows rather that thProbably not; it seems is more likely that this formal freedom is not translated into adoes not imply real contractual power for users. N, and does neither does it not represent any threat to the services, ( neither nor does it offer the provide sufficient function of information source for quality checks on servicesoffers in a competitive market). Vice-versaConversely, citizens’ organizations providing services only have very soft obligations as regardstowards citizen-recipients: the contract does not bind them either to respond to any needs for service changes that could arise, nor to listen to the voice of the person involved. And in any caseMoreover, they can choose their clients and cream out the most burdensome and difficult cases. Beneficiaries who have more serious problems and/or less contractual power are more exposed to the risk of rescission, or non-renewal of the contract by the provider. In the world of welfare, it is indeed easy to become an undesirable client. CObviously enough, criteria of

9 Raffaele Monteleone (2005) underscores the affinities of this contractual formula with “adhesion contracts”, in which clients adhere to a contract whose terms cannot be discussed. 10 It is well known that in the world of welfare services, the mechanism of the adaptive reduction of preferences is widespread. 10 performance in the market framework give the service organizations powerful incentives and constraints to behave in this way. All in all, the recipient, with littlescarce exit power and even less voice, is forced to “choose” loyalty, or, rather, to or to put it better, adapt to a tie of dependence (Monteleone, 2005; De Leonardis, 2009). This gives the service the power to decide on modes of intervention, on what must be done for the customer, and also what the customer must do: this contractual arrangement stresses the recipient’s responsibilitieslization more than his/her freedom, and this is supportedeven through moral and moralizing arguments 11. Many aspects of this arrangement recall the contrat d’allégeance (contract of subjugation) that Alain Supiot (2004, 2007) has observed and described in the world of work.

In the budget-for-care framework, however, the agency – and the freedom – of the recipient is exercised not in choosing not a provider from which to acquire pre-packaged services, but in choosing the services to be provided: that is, in participating firstly in the definition of his/herone’syour own personalized project, and then in everyday choices to put it into practice, and in the on-going evaluation of its effects. ITaking up Hirschman’s typology, individuals express themselves not through ‘exit’ but rather rather through with the “voice” option. (Hirschman 1970). But as we are talking about really “fragile” people, with limitedpoor autonomy and a restricted capacity for control over their lives, we must see how this option is madehave a closer look at the way in which voice functions here. possible from close at hand. It must first of all be said that tThe contractual power and agency of the weaker partner (or more in general his/her agency) is not presupposed in the contract, but is underscored as its objective. It is , as what all the partners are committed to cultivate . through the personalized project. In second place, Cconsequently, the power asymmetry of power between services and users is taken into account as a problematic question to be dealt with in everyday service regarding very practical issues in people’s lives, those involved in the “axes” on which the project is built. Issues such as where to live, how to run a home, deal with troublesome family ties, get around the neighbourhood, choose a work context to for gaining undertakinge a job work experience in, etc. . All these are food for discussion and decisions shared by interested parties and operators. Very meaningful evidence emerging from Ithe interviews and observations gathered in the field show that , points to the high frequency with

11 On the relationship between responsabilization and subjugation see the chapter by Kuhlman, in this volume. It is worth-noting that in Lombardy some very influential Catholic organizations play a central role in giving a moral justification to market behaviors, and in promoting solidarity as intended as a matter of moral values more than of societal co-responsibilities.

11 which operators often highlightedunderscore questions of power intrinsic to their functions – for example regarding the “tensions between supporting and controlling people”, as they often put it. Operators tackle questions of power like these, since the choices at stake regard limits between supporting people’s autonomy and imposing solutions. For example. E.g. (they often spoketalk for instance of “tensions between supporting and controlling”) in relation to , concerning . These frequency levels seem to be correlated to the real-life concrete facts of the issues –more than matters of professional performance - faced, and to the fact that for this reason it is the interested party where the person whom it concerns who has the right and the competence toht to talk about it and make decisions and have a voice. ThisIt tension surrounds the conduct ofconcerns a ‘is a question of life projects’, which calls for the “capacity to aspire” (Appadurai, 2004). Furthermore, in the person’s project several actors are involved, along with her and the operator. On one hand, the three parties of the contract are engaged in an Evaluation Unit, and every three month they check the progress of the project and the changes under way in the user’s life. On the other hand, as the project is about real-life matters, also relatives and friends as well as actors from other welfare services or citizens’ organisations are involved. 12 There are discussions and exchanges of ideas on the issues to be dealt with leading to agreements on actions to be undertaken. The plurality of voices appears to be a key factor for enhancing the user’s voice. It points to the presence of a plurality of forms of support that weak people can lean on when expressing their own voice. Multiple ties and relationships of interdependence can be contrasted with the voucher system characterised by one-way dependence in a dual relationship between user and service. To sum up, the option of voice is created by building the appropriate conditions for the weakest to acquire and enact their “capability for voice” on their personalized projects (Sen 1994. Also see Bonvin, Farvacque 2006; Bifulco et al. 2007).

In these conversations Decisions on personalised projects are negotiated not only betweenIt must finally be added that decisions on these matters appear to be built up and pursued in a process in which several different actors take part, besides tnot just the interested party and service operators; they involvetake part but also relatives and friends as well as actors from other welfare services or citiezens’ organisations that are involved.13. Personalized projects by their nature involve various

12 It needs to be remembered here that the instrument of the budget for care answers another directive of the Friuli welfare regime, that of “integration” between the policies and services of different sectors , which points to co- operation on shared projects both at a managerial and operational level. The regional law re-organizing welfare is known as “Integrated systems for social citizenship”. 13 All these are involved, together with the recipient, in the Quality Check Unit for the personalized project. Every three months the Unit checks the progress of the project and the changes the services have managed to help bring about in the user’s life. 12 sectors in the welfare services system with various competences and public responsibilities14. And anyway relatives and friends, other citizens and citizens’ organizations playing a part in the person’s real-life project are also involved. 15 . 16 .All are also involved, along with the recipient, in quality checks on its progress. There are discussions and exchanges of ideas on the issues to be dealt with leading up to agreements on the related actions to be undertaken. The plurality of voices appears to be a key factor for enhancing the user’s voice. It points to the presence of a plurality of different forms of support that s which weak people can lean on to givewhenfor expressingon to their own voices. Multiple ties and relationships of recalling interdependence can be contrasted with the Lombardy regime characterised by tend to replace a one-way dependence in a dual relationship between user and services. To sum up, the option of voice can be said to beis created by building the appropriate conditions for the weakest to acquire and enact their “capability for voice” on their personalized projects.17

A further element favouring the expression of voice by the most disadvantaged lies in can be traced by looking at the different organizational effects of service relationships (De Leonardis, 2009)18. . In the voucher situation, the service relationship ends with performing the service. The voucher and only organizes the provideroperator-customer exchange. Customers are only involved in a dual relationship with the main provideroperator: ,t exclusively regarding the intervention to be performed within the home. They have no contact with other providersoperators or managers from the service organization. The latter service organisation operates in isolation: aall by itself. A, and absorbed as it is in surviving in a competitive market,in a competitive market, it is organized like a company with a corporate structure; its organizational development chasinges an increase in market share:. I, its networks with other service organizations are limited to enhancing their give rise to instrumental aggregations aimeding at lobbying power. , and its operators who belonging carrying out their duties at the user’s home are also without lack a a voice and an organizational context in which to use it. The operators who carry out their duties at the user’s home also lack a a voice and an organizational context in which to use it.

14 It needs to be remembered here that the instrument of the budget for care answers another directive of the Friuli welfare regime, that of “integration” between the policies and services of the different sectors , which points to co- operation on shared projects both at a managerial and executive level. The regional law re-organizing welfare is known as “Integrated systems for social citizenship”. 15 All these are involved, together with the recipient, in the Quality Check Unit for the personalized project. Every three months the Unit checks the progress of the project and the changes the services have managed to help bring about in the user’s life. 16 It needs to be remembered here that the instrument of the budget for care answers another directive of the Friuli welfare regime, that of “integration” between the policies and services of the different sectors , which points to co- operation on shared projects both at a managerial and executive level. The regional law re-organizing welfare is known as “Integrated systems for social citizenship”. 17 See Sen 1994. On the application of Sen’s capability approach to these matters, see Bonvin, Farvacque 2006; Bonvin 2006; Bifulco et al. 2007. 18 This is analysed more in detail in De Leonardis, 2009. 13 Let us now look at the organizational environments around the budget for care. Organization—or betterrather, organizing (Czarniawska, 1997, Weick, 1995)—is precisely what the service relationships around the budget for care tend to generate and cultivate. On the one hand, service organizations have open, fluid borders and a decisively hybrid nature. RAnd recipients continuously move to and fro across these borders and into hybrid situations. On the other hand, suchthese organizations are expected to promote and cultivate other organisations, projects andorganizing processes in a variety of real-life fields. With the aim ofIn order to implementing personalized projects, service organizations find themselves multiplying organizations.

From the point of view of the recipient, tTIf we look at recipients, the differences between the organizational environments what the budget and the voucher systems generate respectively from the point of view ofor the recipient areis crystal clear. Evidence of There is a marked an organizational vacuum around the voucher user, in sharp contrast with the is highlighted by the comparison with the density of organizational texture around the budget user, and with a variety of spaces opening for where relationships of cooperation and support can arise, and where discussion and conflict and co-responsibility are formed. This, which goes far beyond a service relationship as usually understood.intended. This difference recalls the analysis made by This finding mirrors Robert Castels description of on the present re-organization of welfare: the weakening of social protections, he says, is happening precisely through the weakening or dismantlement of “collectives” and the redefinition of citizens as “collections of individuals” (Castel 2001). I could argue that Tthe voucher produces “collections of individuals”:, isolated consumers in the market, who are free but alone – “individus par defaut” (Castell again - while the budget generates real-life contexts dense with “collectives” in which people participate, and get support and recognition 19 . It must, however, be emphasised that this relates to the way in which welfare services are organised in Fruili, and is not intrinsic to the system of personal budgets per se (compare with Newman’s account of individual budgets in the UK, this volume). As The differences in the expression of active citizenship emerging from our comparison between voucher and budget for care are very clear. And as for our question on the inclusion-exclusion cleavage, the voucher shows clear tendencies to select, exclude and discipline while the budget for care shows marked can be seen fairly clearly on one side and on the other tendencies to include, backing the agency of weak citizens. These result from different ways in which If and how asymmetries of power and inequalities between them are faced. is what makes the difference

19 It must, however, be emphasised that this relates to the way in which the policy instrument of the budget-for-care has been built up in Friuli, and is not intrinsic to the system of personal budgets per se (compare with Newman’s account of individual budgets in the UK, this volume). 14 between these two tendencies.

4. Focusing on territory-making. Territories as private or public spaces.

The so called “localization” of welfare policies, - which forms as we know another driver in the processes of reorganizing traced in several; chapters of this volume -, has taken place in Italy, too. As well as the devolution of welfare to regional administrations, we can also trace , along with a . And in Italy too this directive is being implemented – besides in the creation of different local welfare - in the territorialization of policies, especially of . This orientation levers particularly on urban policies – housing, the regeneration of degraded areas, as well as urban safety - , in which local governments make considerable investments. Altogether, we are witnessing the emergence of territorial modes of governance (Bricocoli, De Leonardis, Tosi, 2008; Bricocoli, Savoldi, 2009). “territory policies”, and Ggoverning the territory is taking on the characteristics ofhas become a mode of governance20. TBesides, the “territory” is the object of much concern: appreciation. iIt , which influences repertories of action, vocabularies of motivess, and the justifying grammars of citizens’ initiatives and organizations. . In a way, active citizenship becomes a matter of “taking care of the territory”. The territory – as how it is created by active citizens – represents is thus a crucial point of observation with respect to ourfor a critical analysis of active citizenship, bringing into view. This involves the variable of space (so important for issues of citizenship – see Neveu this volume21). for investigating the differences in the practices of active citizenship pertinent to our enquiry. And that is ifDo territorialsuch practices generate selective and excluding dynamics and divisions between citizens or if instead they are they directed towards widening citizenship and creating supports for the inclusion and participation of the weakest citizens in discussions and choices relating to theirabout questions of collective interest?. To put it briefly, the alternativeHow are between inclusion and exclusion is in this case explored in inscribed in the organization of space, and : in the way active citizens construct their territory 22. ?

The In some situations, the territory to be cared for is may be treated as an extension of a personal private space – with a rationale of appropriation - even invia citizen mobilization, - to enclose it in order to exclude or expel other citizens. The citizens (or denizens) suffering such exclusions are usually foreign migrants, but such rationales also become evident in mobilizations against the

20 I allude here to the prospective of research developed by Foucault in some of his courses at the College de France. as well as to the debate –especially about governamentalité – it has provoked. I cannot indepth the allusion here, nor explore its implications – which indeed exist- regarding the issues of citizenship under discussion in this chapter. 21 On this question also see the chapter by Neveu 22 The results of the research on this subject have been presented and discussed in Bricocoli, De Leonardis, Tosi, 2008. Also see Bricocoli, Savoldi, 2009.

15 construction of a mosque or a gipsy camp, or in favour of fencing off public areas.23. In a more benign variation the territory is treated as a common good which all the citizens are responsible for (Ostrom, Date). Here 24: citizen initiatives are developed to create self-run residential areas in which “to live among ourselves”; the possible involvement of disadvantaged individuals or families denotinges a social calling in the project. Catholic culture strongly pushes towards such a communitarian orientation. In other policy contexts, the territory is instead constructed as a public space: the space for taking part in discussions and decision-makingtaking over issues of collective interest, starting from the fact that the citizens have a direct knowledge of it , given that it is the context of their everyday lives (see Neveu, this volume, on the constitution of Les Habitants in the French context of participation). . In brief, in this case active citizenship takes on a political flavour.

Territorial governance he territory and active citizenship are interdependent (if not mutually constitutive), and are formed together (Ostrom, 2005) . It is this interdependence that I want to put this interdependence under the microscope by discussing the results of a second comparative study about the two welfare regimes of Lombardy and Friuli, regarding territory programmes in two cities, Milan and Trieste. In both cases they are concernmostly social housing programmes which combine in various forms “people and place” (to use an expression of Donzelot’s: Donzelot, 2006), meaning that they are supposed to integrate interventions on people (such aslike traditional social services and policies) with those on living spaces , (like urban and residential/housing policies) . The research carried out into social housing policies in Milan, whose merits are not under discussion in this paper, registers the influence of a market frame, placing property prices, private property and more in general the appeal of the city in a competitive rationale. This influence can be detected particularly in theIndicationsSigns of this includeare the presence of strong economic interests in the partnership bodiess for managing those programmes; and also a selective orientation concerning the districts quarters and social groups in question, and a tendency to exclude the most problematic ones (see also Ruppert, 2006). Furthermore, Iin governing the territory the Municipality tends to emphasize the question issues of security and urban insecurities, safety, introducing by way of , preventive and repressive programmes and actions against potentially dangerous social groups (likesuch as Islamic immigrants and gypsies, typically).

23 Naturally the citizens (or denizens) suffering discrimination are usually foreign immigrants. This happens for example in the mobilization against the construction of a mosque or a gipsy camp, or in favour of fencing off public areas. 24 There is not enough space for discussing Elinor Ostrom’s framework about governing the commons (Ostrom..) 16 Where is active citizenship in this scenario? It is provided, perhaps, by citizens’ associations, philanthropic agencies or bank foundations offering social housing through agreements with regional or municipal governments for public funding or the release of public land. A first answer – doubtless partial – comes from case we are now going to examine. It is provided by Consider aan examination of social housing promoted by citizens’ associations, philanthropic agencies or bank foundations, which operate through agreements with a regional or municipal government for public funding (whether direct or indirect via the release of public land) and are legitimized by the discourse of organized civil society. Here, I will examine the case of the social housing project launched by an influential Catholic-based bank foundation in agreement with the Region and aimed at promoting the social integration of persons and families with social problems, by improving their housing conditions –one example of many, supposedly civil society originated, projects. This programme is designed to create “villages”, a widespread nomenclature for residential developmentaccording to the denomination that is widespread in Milan for such types of residential formulas. The foundation provides for the construction of estates (entrusted to a real estate company with social aims). It governs and the selection of recipients based on the idea of mixité , by combining “normal” families ( medium-low incomes and/or young couples) with “problematic” families (including immigrants). The programme also involves volunteer associations and non-profit companies providing social services. There is no involvement whatsoever of the local system of public health/social services. ReMoreover, the programme provides for residents are expected to assumeing formal responsibility particularly for the management of common services and areas.

The selection of recipients is a crucial element of the analysis that must be looked at closely. The programme was createdis built and operates independently of the public regulation of social housing by theand the competent Regional Agency (ALER), even regarding the selection ofng recipient citizens and the assignment ofing apartments. Selection is thus not subordinated to the publicly determined procedures and criteria of entitlement. It is carried out with procedures and criteria that are established independently by programme promoters, and is thus not , which is marked with forms of selective universalism (that is, based on a principle of positive discrimination) or other ‘public’ values., and is carried out with procedures and criteria that are established independently by programme promoters. We therefore find ourselves faced with private decisions: the allocation of dwellings is no longer made on the basis of entitlement to a right — of which public authorities, criteria and procedures are guarantors — but looks more like a concession, or perhaps a co-optation, based on on privatistic and particularistic normsbases. The contract signed

17 by the tenants—who exercise their freedom of choice (we are in Lombardy)—again presents some similarities with “adhesion contracts”—adhesion, in this case, to the programme and its rules, together with the rules of the community or “village” it creates. The responsibility for supporting the situation of mixité also rests on their shoulders.

If we look at this from the perspective of the weakest citizens taking part in the programme—those problematic families whose inclusionadhesion legitimizes the social vocation of the programme itself —adhesion inclusion comes to mean subjection, since such citizens are easily blackmailed and risk being blamed if anything goes wrong in the self-management of the village. Since the programme is not yet active, it is too soon to say whether tensions, expulsory impulses or escapes risk occurring within the villages, but if we consider literature on the issues, it becomes aon the basis of the literature, it is a reasonable hypothesis. Overall, we find ourselves faced with a) the initiative of an organization with a social or civic vocation that is however private, endowed with the power to intervene on residential issues, which substitutes public powers and responsibilities for privatised actions (on the part of the agency) and personalised responsibilities (for the residents). The result is; and b) the creation of a social and residential space with its confines own rules of membership, a space that is privatized, unlike the city as a whole and its statute as a public space.

In the case of the Friuli Region, I will focus on Trieste, the Region’s main city and , also very influential on welfare matters at Regional government level. Trieste has a records a high leveldiffusion of public welfare services seats and and activities in deprived graded areas and an orientation to aaddressing,lso taking on board together with their recipients (“heavy users”, they say) their social habitat, and activating local resources and citizen organizations to improve it. . The principal agencies influencing this orientation are impulse in this direction is given above all by the local agencies of the health service management, not least because of the. TIn Trieste, the legacy of the from the already mentioned transformation of mental health provision mentioned earlier. , can be easily detected. TIn the management as in the professional cultures traces remain in both managerial and professional cultures of the lessons learnt from “accompanying the mad back into town”. This explains the apparent inconsistency of the programme which I will now illustrate (De Leonardis, Monteleone, 2007; Bifulco, Bricocoli, Monteleone, 2009). It is guided by the city’s public health authority, but it is applied to difficult public housing estates, so that it deals with both people and their context, including the – even physical context of housing.. The programme, called “Micro-areas, Health and Community Development”, was developed experimentally in

18 1988, put into effect at a local level in 2005, and then launched regionally in 2006. It implements the directive of the Friuli Region for “integration” between diverse policies both at a managerial and operationalexecutive level, and is based on an agreement between the Health Authority, the Public Housing Agency and the Municipality’s welfare system. This agreement is intended to firstly a) bring together the staff operators in these different public services with the third sector in circumscribed areas of the city, and secondly tob) develop joint actions both on places and people, integrating social interventions, health care interventions and rehabilitation of housing and public spaces. The idea at the heart of the programme is that a Ffull accomplishment of social citizenship, in particular with respect to well-being and health rights, is considered an indispensable condition and vehicle for citizens acquiring and exercising an active role in the decisions that involve them and their life contexts. Activation is evidentmeasured, on one hand, in transforming situations of deprivation, by developing individual capabilities for action and for voice (in the same vein as the instrument of budget for care already examined); and alsoon the other in involving citizens in choices concerning their life contexts, their neighbourhoods. The programme was developed in nine micro-areas (with approximately 17,000 residents, out of a total of 245,000); each has a micro-area manager and an open centre , both aimed at linking citizens and institutions.

How have There is not sufficient space here for me to give a detailed description of how the programme works (even though, as is well known, details are important in these cases), and I will have to limit myself to focusing on the ways in which the citizens of those areas have been involved and activated, and how do they participate?. a) The programme stresses the territorial vocation of health services and of the broad network of relationships between the public and the third sector, which are marked by shows a deep-rooted capacity for cooperation. The different health and social departments work on site throughout the territory, “going down into the streets”: “We go where people live, we don’t wait for them to come to the service.” They make themselves visible in a neighbourhood —for instance, by setting up a yellow beach umbrella in a square on a summer day, where public health service operators stand and wait for opportunities to practice active listening strategies. They listen to people talking about themselves, noting situations, providing assistance and participating in more or less-organized citizen groups. In this sense, the programme enhances people’s voices, their chances to speak, protest and make plans. b) The territory is thus no longer the place sending single cases to the service, but the arena in which citizen demands, resources and initiatives are displayed. Micro-areas play the role of

19 incubators for different kinds of self-organized initiatives. To give some examples: gGroups of senior citizens e.g. take lessons from a physiotherapist and then organize soft gymnastics, take walks and go on excursions; another group of citizens creates an association with the task of transforming an abandoned weed-ridden, rubbish-dump of a lot into a garden and plant trees and flowers; another group organizes itself to launch a project on the upgrading of a city square, and participates in meetings and discussions with the public housing authority, urban planners and professors from several universities. . c) Finally, it is worth noting that the programme is also intends ded to monitor (at the micro-level) improvements in citizen health (understood in a broad sense, as well-being: we are in Friuli). Micro-areas are intended as strategies for explored ing and acknowledging to find out what is not working in ordinary organizational practices and what needs to be reorganized to enhance well- being. This strategy also intends to expose institutions to a redefinition of their tasks and, thus, to the dynamics of institutional reflexivity. “No possibility of choosing: everything enters the micro- area’s base” : citizens’ voices - their demands, protests, proposals and initiatives- are intended to feed this institutional reflexivity, and thus become an integral part of the political process.

The cases of Milan and Trieste thus are not directly comparable. Nonetheless, their differences are highly relevant for the case I am working on. They offer a general confirmation of two different ways of understanding and valuing the active role of the citizens, policies and political orientations, in the corresponding regional systems of welfare. AIn particular, the differences in our two cases signal that an element of discrimination regarding inclusion or exclusion appears to exists in in the ways of enacting citizenship in a territory and giving form to it. The territory-making follows the same alternative as Janet Newman’s (in this book) “I belong here, it belongs to me/us” (this volume – eds to check this still exists!). The social housing programme in Milan reveals an orientation that increases residential opportunities for disadvantaged people too, but it gives the organizing territory a privatistic character: both as a space for exercising decision-making powers (in electing the participants and imposing the rules of the game) that displacessubstitute public authority; and as a closed space, a separate social and residential area with respect to the city.

In tThe micro-areas programme in Trieste, however, develops the conditions for territories to become public spaces, in which citizens – both as individuals and in association with each other -both the single and associated citizens of those territories enter into a dialogue with the institutions responsible for their well-being. Issues of collective interest are discussed from different perspectives; decisions are granted public visibility and their consequences are submitted to criticism and judgment. L. E; and effects of learning on about the management of commons isare

20 nourished between institutions and citizens. Here In this case citizen involvement in the territory considered as a public space indeed public e territory considered as a public space, acquires the features of political participation.

Conclusions

The anallaysis I have presented in this chapter has pointed to significant variations in how citizens are involved in welfare service provision. investigation carried out in different policy areas has brought to the lightabout a significant variety both in the situations active citizens are involved in and the modes of involvement. But Iit has also traced not only the different positions of citizens as welfare users in different governance regimes, but also different ways in which citizens are involved in territorial processes of governance. Here I go on to consider how these might be related, and - how different images of the active citizen are articulated. out altogether two altogether different configurations of active citizenship and has furnished several insights into how and how these differences take formshape. Recalling the images of the active citizen s we have outlined in Lombardy and Friuli, the two territories, we ask howwe wonder how they are related: how do the images of citizens involved in voucher use either as recipients or providers, converge with those of citizens bent on constructing their own ”village”? . And how far do the images of citizens asare budget users and as residents of micro-areas convergesimilar? The two contexts of activation examined in each of the two regions offerpresent meaningful similarities: the evidence emerging from the territory of service provision are fairly congruent with what emerges from analysing the involvement of citizens constructing their settlement. These contexts allow us to glimpse several essential traits of the regional welfare regimes they belong to, which correspondcohering aroundrresponding to different regional “political projects” (Newman, Clarke, 2009) and to different ways modes of governinggovernance, : more precisely of governing by active citizens, giving which give rise to different forms of citizenship. In other words, active citizenship is taking on different configurations with different normative, practical and discursive profiles. It can be said briefly that we have found inIn the Lombard regimemodel we found significant traces of consumer citizenship, which is in line with an accentuatedthe marketization of the services system: recipient citizens as consumers, moral arguments responsibilising individuals and families, and citizen organizations that function like companies. Citizens are empowered – if at all - by enlarging their own private sphere. In Friuli we have recognisedfound a political mould on active citizenship, which is expressed in the concrete problems of people’s life and is measured in their voices. On one hand, this basis for politicizationwhich recalls the social movements (especially women’s) claims for “politics of everyday life”, on the other it seems to be correlated tobut also the

21 public institutions’ strong activism in the matters of welfare, cwhich correspondings to social protections established as rights.

The exploration in our fields has given numerous insights into the differences between these two configurations of active citizenship regarding the principal issue that I proposed at the beginning of this chapter: and that is if and howHow does the exercise of active citizenship feeds dynamics of selection and exclusion (or of expansion and inclusionthe reverse)? or vice versa of expansion and inclusion. I specify and recall that for this analysis recipients and more precisely theHaving taken most disadvantaged recipients have been taken as sensors in the matter of active citizenship: more precisely, indeed, sensors for detecting these dynamics in the forms expressing their agency. From this analytic perspective there emerges a fact, or rather a problem, that needs to be examined: it iswe found that precisely in the relations between citizens that the these processes processes of selection and exclusion or involvement in discussion and decision-making are generated and fostered precisely in the relations between citizens. Naturally the normative and institutional framework - which we have illustrated by examining policy instruments - factors influenceinfluences the forms that the relations between citizens take, including how active citizenship is . From this perspective the normative ties positioned fixing active citizenship along the private/public axis. are relevant. The normative basis associations of theLet us go back to the analysis of theConsidering the two types of contract regulating the relations between citizens as recipients and as providers (, in the cases of a voucher and a budget- for- care) are very different. T: . The formerthe voucher has is of a the private nature corresponding to the original prototype of a market exchange between two formally equal subjects, endowed with an equal “autonomy of will” (the traps of which are well known from Marx on with regard to contracts for the workforce). The contract for budget use conversely, bringsing in the public authority as third partner, confers a public nature on and gives the signed agreement and on the ties it establishes a public nature ( whose ratio is well known from the history of collective work contracts). In the voucher, tThe contractual power of the recipient is presupposed in the first case, while in the second casebudget- for- care it is what is finalized in the contract. Inequalities between the contractors remain private in the first case, while in the second they are are treated as a matter of public responsibility.

We have also glimpsed how the imputation of responsibility lurks behind the freedom of the voucher’s contractors and how it justifies discipline and subjugation. In the exchanges between citizens, lie concealed inequalities lie concealed: for which the normative framework furnishes no vocabulary through which inequalities might befor recognisedtion. TLet us consider the normative

22 framework forset up for the creation of “villages” at Milan: it provides for the acquisition of public ground by private citizenss who are able to choose who will can else can live there. T; such athis selection of beneficiaries, not to mention the criteria adopted, areis no longer a matters of public responsibility and choice - it.It is, but become the prerogative of private actors, however well- intentioned. Altogether, aThis private and particularistic configuration of the relations between citizens as providers and recipients, allows the former – and gives private actors them the corresponding grammars of justification – to operate selections among the latterselect, construct access thresholds, close off communities and resort to cream-skimminging-out practices: so this configuration setsin brief, to introduce set off dynamics of exclusion and discrimination. Vice versa, in the two research areas inConversely, the Friuli the emphasis on public responsibility is very evident, as it is on the public statute of problems and action they tackle. This central position of the public frame corresponds to a universalistic orientation, inclusive of measured , as we have seen, on the most disadvantaged citizens. And theThe field of action in which citizens interact – both in personalised projects and living spacesquarters - belongs to a public regime in which discussions and choices held up to theare publicly public visibleility..

TFurther aspects of the differences between the two configurations of active citizenship under examination emerge from the analysis of institutional factors the organizational forms. This furnishes several insights into how the latter give form to relations between citizens. Recalling briefly what has emerged from the analysis of the organizational implications of voucher use, we have seenshows that that service organizations in Lombardy correspond to the organizational prototype of a market company, and as such relate to the citizen recipients as, who in turn correspond to the prototype of a customer. The latter custormer moves - as we said – in an organizational vacuum, stripped ofwhich is also a vacuum of collective belongings and sources of support - of those “supports to individuation” Castel (2009, Conclusions) talks about. to lean on, of “supports to individuation”, to use Castel’s expression (Castel, 2009, Conclusions). Conditions of isolation are created in this vacuum, which expose recipients, especially if disadvantaged, , to the risk of undergoing choices imposed by the service organization, and dictated more by corporate rationales than by the voicesneeds of the users. It is in this vacuum that selection dynamics take placegrow, and conditions of subjection are set up. In contrast in Friuuili,We have observed instead both in the case of budget- for - care in the and in the micro-areas wherethat multipliers of organizations and “multipliers” of organizations and inter-organizational networks are at work, feeding a variety of situations where , where people citizens get involved and interactconfront one another and with public authorities in a public context. and the public institutes. That is, participation is a shared, rather than individuated, experience. I have already shown that the

23 inclusiveness of this dense organizational texture is evident in relation to the weakest recipients and their capacity for voice. I will add that the density The density of the organizational texture goes side by side with the variety of people involved, so that different citizens combine each other, by enacting, say, the Tocqueville’s “art of associating together” (Tocqueville, 1988, Book II, Part II, chapter 5 ). Recalling Tocqueville’s main argument on democracy forms, contents and rationales regarding relationships among participants. It is a hybrid organizational fabric, as we said, which is constructed on – and which feeds - a “ combination of differences” (c.f.the recall is of Tocqueville REFERENCE? ) hosting a plurality of voices. I have already shown that the inclusiveness of this organizational fabric is evident in relation to measured on the weakest recipients and their capacity for voices. I will add that the recall of the “combination of differences ” Tocqueville talks about with reference to democracy, (of which “the art of how to combine” is a constituent requisite ) is not without relevance herecoherence. in this case. It serves to underline the fact that in this organizational texture the relations that unequal and different citizens install between them are political (Skocpol, 2005), in the sense that they are mediated by a common belonging tobelonging to a political community (Skocpol, 2005; Urbinati, 2006, chapter 4). That is, participation in that case is a shared, rather than individuated, experience.

So it is by examining So let us make a brief summary and come to a conclusion. These and other suggestions confirm that what is happening among citizens in the practices of active citizenship in the field of welfare ( in first place between recipients and suppliers) furnishes a critical point for observing what they generate. And in the interaction between citizens (including citizens as providers and as recipients) that, dynamics of inexclusion or exclusion , selection and disciplining, of discrimination and subjugation, are revealed.generated And it is in this interaction that . and Fforms of discrimination and subjugation are set up: and that between citizens. WA consequence of the issue that calls for reflection regards the nature of the inequalities in play. In fact where selection and disciplining, discrimination and subjugation, are generated. Where these dynamics operate, not only inequality in treatment is set up, tending to reinforce more complex social inequalities, but also and, but also more precisely power relationships between unequal citizens are established. In addition it would be important to consider ( we are within a private framework of relations, as I have said) that tThese tend not toies do not enter the public field of visibility:, rather they remain get/keep being unexpressed and opaque. This contrasts withI take up this indication from the contrastive suggestions that arise from those contexts in which (power)inequalities between citizens , the afore-mentioned asymmetries of power, are named and faced. This ; which only happensed when . It seems –at least remaining with the cases examined- that when this happens it is because relations among citizens are provided with political vocabularies for talking

24 about power in a public regime of justification, and their participation nourishes the where that for the latter to be instituted and nourished public institutions reflexivity of the institutions playing a third party role are instituted and nourished needed.

M So, my analysis skirtstops right on the outskirts of a question that appearslooks paradoxical, at least in Italy., as far as active citizenship is concerned. Citizens liberated from impositions made by hierarchicalvertical authorities and left free to organize themselves, are not able, even if they want to, to oppose the making of horizontal the creation of power inequalities if not and domination ties among citizens. them - horizontally, so to speak. SWhile strong vertical ties asnd the active pressing presence of public authority - we have metaslike in Trieste a pressing presence of public authority – seem to be an essential conditions for the a public treatment of inequality among citizens. This confoundssounds paradoxical if we thinkconsidering about the widespread image of active citizens arrayed against the overweeaning power of hip which is expressed and qualified against public institutions. But perhaps this paradox only holds true in Italy.

25 Barnes, M., Newman, J. and Sullivan, H. (2007) Power, Participation and Political Renewal: Case Studies in Public Participation. Bristol:Policy Press Bifulco, L., Borghi, V. De Leonardis, O., Vitale, T., 2006,eds., Che cosa è pubblico?, La Rivista delle Politiche Sociali, 2, 201-217 Bifulco, L., Bricocoli, M., Monteleone, R., 2008, “Activation and Local Welfare in Italy. Trends, Issues, and a Case Study”, Social Policy and Administration, 2. Bifulco, L., De Leonardis, O., Mozzana, C., Vitale, T., 2007, “Policy Devices in Action. A Research Strategy for Analysing Normative Resources in a Capability Perspective”, CAPRIGHT Papers, www. Capright.eu. Bifulco, L., Vitale, T., 2006, « Contracting for Welfare Services in Italy », Journal of Social Policy, 3, 495-513 Bonvin, J.-M., Farvaque, N., 2006, Promoting Capability for Work: The Role of Local Actors, in S. Deneulin et al., eds., The Capability Approach, Towards Structural Transformations, Dordrecht: Springer, 121-143 Bricocoli, M., De Leonardis, O.,Tosi, A., 2008, “Infléxions néo-libérales dans les politiques locales en Italie », in Donzelot, J., ed., Ville violence et dependence sociale, Paris: Editions du PUCA. Castel, R., 2001, L’insécurité sociale, Paris : Seuil Castel, R., 2009, La montée des insécurités, Paris : Seuil Cefaï, D., Pasquier, D., 2003, eds., Le sens du public, Paris: PUF Czarniawska, B., 1997, Narrating the Organization. Dramas of Institutional Diversity, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press 26 De Leonardis, O., 2006, “Social Quality, Social Capital, and Health”, European Journal of Social Quality, 3 De Leonardis, O., 2009, Organization Matters. Contracting for Service Provision and Civicness, T. Brandsen, P. Dekker, A. Evers, eds, Civicness in the Governance and Delivery of Social Services, NOMOS, 2009 De Tocqueville, A., 1988) Democracy in America, edited by J.P. Mayer, New York: Harper- Collins [1835-40] Donzelot, J., 2006, Quand la ville se défait, Paris: Seuil Ferrera, M. (1996): The ‘Southern Model’ of Welfare in Social Europe, in: Journal of European Social Policy, No 6, pp.16-37 Giorgi, A., Polizzi, E., 2007, “Contrattualizzazione e mercato sociale: il caso dei voucher” in Monteleone, ed., 105-122

Hirschman, A., 1970, Exit, Voice, Loyalty: Responses to the Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States, Cambridge, Mass./London:Harvard University Press

Lascumes, P., Le Galès, P., 2004, Gouverner par les instruments, Paris : Presses de Sciences-Po

Lascumes, P., Le Galès, P., 2007, “Understanding Public Policy through its Instrumentation”, Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 20 (1), 1-21

Mingione, E. 2001: The Southern European Welfare Model and the Fight against Poverty and Social Exclusion, in: Dolba, M.K. (ed.): Our Fragiles World. Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainable Development: EOLSS Publishers.

Monteleone, R., 2005, “La contrattualizzazione delle politiche sociali: il caso dei voucher e dei budget di cura”, in Bifulco, L., ed., Le politiche sociali. Temi e prospettive emergenti, Roma: Carocci

Monteleone, R., 2007, ed., La contrattualizzazione delle politiche sociali: forme ed effetti, Roma: Officina

Newman, J. (2005) ed.: Remaking Governance. People, Politics and the Public Sphere: Policy Press Newman, J., Clarke, J. (2009) Publics, Politics and Power: Remaking the Public in Public Services, London: Sage Ostrom, E. (2005) Understanding Institutional Diversity, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press

27 Ruppert, E (2006) The Moral Economy of Cities: shaping good citizens. Toronto, University of Toronto Press. Sen, A. (1994) Inequality Reexamined, Oxford: Clarendon Press Skocpol, T. (2003) Diminished Democracy: From Membership to Management in American Civic Life, Norman: University of Oklaoma Supiot, A. (2005) Homo Juridicus, Paris : Seuil Supiot, A. (2007) « Les deux visages de la contractualisation : déconstruction du droit et renaissance féodale », in S. Chassagnard-Pinet, D., Hiez, Approche critique de la contractualisation, Paris : LGDJ, 19-44 Tilly, C., Tarrow, S. (2006) Contentious Politics, Boulder CO: Paradigm Press University Press. Urbinati, N. ( 2006) Representative democracy: Principles and genealogy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Weick, K.(1995) Sensemaking in Organizations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Appadurai, A., 2004, The Capacity to Aspire: Culture and the Terms of Recognition, in Vijayendra, R., Walton, M. (eds). Culture and Public Action, Stanford Barnes, M., Newman, J. and Sullivan, H. (2007) Power, participation and political renewal: case studies in public participation. Bristol, Policy Press.

Bifulco, L., Borghi, V. De Leonardis, O., Vitale, T., 2006,eds., Che cosa è pubblico?, La Rivista delle Politiche Sociali, 2, 201-217 Bifulco, L., Bricocoli, M., Monteleone, R., 2008, “Activation and Local Welfare in Italy. Trends, Issues, and a Case Study”, Social Policy and Administration, 2.

Bifulco, L., De Leonardis, O., Mozzana, C., Vitale, T., 2007, Policy Devices in Action. A Research Strategy for Analysing Normative Resources in a Capability Perspective, CAPRIGHT Papers, www. Capright.eu.

Bifulco, L., Vitale, T., 2006, « Contracting for Welfare Services in Italy », Journal of Social Policy, 3, 495-513 Bonvin, J.-M., Farvaque, N., 2006, Promoting Capability for Work: The Role of Local Actors, in S. Deneulin et al., eds., The Capability Approach, Towards Structural Transformations, Dordrecht: Springer, 121-143 Bricocoli, M., De Leonardis, O.,Tosi, A., 2008, “Infléxions néo-libérales dans les politiques locales en Italie, in Donzelot, J., ed., Ville violence et dependence sociale, Paris: Editions du PUCA. 28 Castel, R., 2001, L’insécurité sociale, Paris : Seuil Castel, R., 2009, La montée des insécurités, Paris : Seuil Cefaï, D., Pasquier, D., 2003, eds., Le sens du public, Paris: PUF Czarniawska, B., 1997, Narrating the Organization. Dramas of Institutional Diversity, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press De Leonardis, O., 2006, “Social Quality, Social Capital, and Health”, European Journal of Social Quality, 3 De Leonardis, O., 2009, Organization Matters. Contracting for Service Provision and Civicness, T. Brandsen, P. Dekker, A. Evers, eds, Civicness in the Governance and Delivery of Social Services, NOMOS, 2009 Donzelot, J., 2006, Quand la ville se défait, Paris: Seuil Ferrera, M. (1996): The ‘Southern Model’ of Welfare in Social Europe, in: Journal of European Social Policy, No 6, pp.16-37 Giorgi, A., Polizzi, E., 2007, “Contrattualizzazione e mercato sociale: il caso dei voucher” in Monteleone, ed., 105-122

Gori, C., 2005, ed., Politiche sociali di centro-destra. La riforma del welfare lombardo, Roma:Carocci

Hirschman, A., 1970, Exit, Voice, Loyalty: Responses to the Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States, Cambridge, Mass./London:Harvard University Press

Lascumes, P., Le Galès, P., 2004, Gouverner par les instruments, Paris : Presses de Sciences- PoLascumes, P., Le Galès, P., 2007, “Understanding Public Policy through its Instrumentation”, Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 20 (1), 1-21

Mingione, E. 2001: The Southern European Welfare Model and the Fight against Poverty and Social Exclusion, in: Dolba, M.K. (ed.): Our Fragiles World. Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainable Development: EOLSS Publishers.

Monteleone, R., 2005, “La contrattualizzazione delle politiche sociali: il caso dei voucher e dei budget di cura”, in Bifulco, L., ed., Le politiche sociali. Temi e prospettive emergenti, Roma: Carocci

Monteleone, R., 2007, ed., La contrattualizzazione delle politiche sociali: forme ed effetti, Roma: Officina

Newman, J. (2005) ed.: Remaking Governance. People, Politics and the Public Sphere: Policy

29 Press

Newman, J., Clarke, J., 2009, Publics, Politics and Power: Remaking the Public in Public Services, London: Sage

Ruppert, E (2006) The Moral Economy of Cities: shaping good citizens. Toronto, University of Toronto Press.

Sen, A., 1994, Inequality Reexamined, Oxford: Clarendon Press

Skocpol, T., 2003, Diminished Democracy: From Membership to Management in American Civic Life, Norman: University of Oklaoma

Supiot, A., 2005, Homo Juridicus, Paris : Seuil

Supiot, A., 2007, « Les deux visages de la contractualisation : déconstruction du droit et renaissance féodale », in S. Chassagnard-Pinet, D., Hiez, Approche critique de la contractualisation, Paris : LGDJ, 19-44 Tilly, C., Tarrow, S., Contentious Politics, Boulder CO: Paradigm Press University Press. Weick, K., 1995, Sensemaking in Organizations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

30

Load more

  30

Copy Link