Introduction

A thousand years ago, the Arabs had already concluded that the Italian peninsula was too long to govern effectively (Ruffolo, 2009). More recently, urban regeneration policies promoted in Italy have encountered significant challenges, especially the challenge of coordinating public, private and third sector actors (Bobbio, 2004). Moreover, there has been a general failure to connect to community interests as part of the regeneration process. Although there have been notable exceptions (for example, in Bologna, see Ginocchini and Tartari, 2007), the general picture in Italy is one of weak engagement of communities with the politics of urban policy. This chapter is primarily concerned with the openness of those politics to community voices. It considers the drivers of community action in terms of why communities seek engagement with development processes, and why some policy makers are more receptive to that engagement. A series of Italian cases are used to dissect the interaction of active citizens with local politics, often in situations of mistrust and in a country where professional networks tend to dominate and exclude non-professional actors.

There are a number of fast and easy explanations as to why Italy has begun to embrace community input into planning. First, European funding sources may only be accessible where particular engagement practices are adhered to (Ciaffi, 2005). Second, there is a closer affiliation between grassroot movements and specific political groupings, which gives an uneven geography of engagement based on political leaning. Third, the specific goal of alleviating conflict has a role to play in promoting engagement (Saporito and Ciaffi, 2013). The reasons why community groups have become more active in the planning arena tend to mirror the factors determining institutional support. They also want the funding, and political ties secure political activism. There are also more general drivers, however: many groups are responding to what they see as a malaise of over-development in some cities, and therefore come together to oppose new projects. In response, some urban authorities have tried to harness the ‘negative energy’ of communities and refocus it not on the quantity of development, but its quality – asking them to think about what they would like to see rather than what they wouldn’t. In this context, some active citizens and communities have emerged.