Componentes de la tarifa Fijo-Móvil

To date, relatively few scholars have contributed to the study of civic and political participation by people of migrant background in Italy. The migration literature on participation in Italy is often incomplete and merely descriptive. Nonetheless, few authors have studied variations in participation at the local level through the use of an institutional approach. In particular, the work by Tiziana Caponio is extremely important. In her article, “Policy networks and immigrants’ associations in Italy: the cases of Milan, Bologna, and Naples,” Caponio (2005, 932) examines the role of different institutional actors in promoting civic participation. She shows the differences in approaches to integration

29

between left-wing and right-wing administrations. While administrations with left-wing majorities are usually more responsive to the needs of immigrants, and more inclined to create “measures aimed at opening the institutional opportunity structure to immigrants’ associations,” right-wing majorities tend to do the opposite, avoiding the issue of integration, presenting “immigration as a problem of public security, and completely ignor(ing) questions regarding the participation of immigrants’ associations” (2005, 947- 948). Thus, left-wing local governments are more likely to provide institutional resources for immigrant organizations. Caponio notes that center-left majorities’ policies have been “contradictory,” and have never really succeeded in consolidating immigrants’ associations (Caponio 2005, 948).

In her book, Italian cities and immigration (Città Italiane e Immigrazione), Caponio (2006a) further develops her study in Milan, Bologna, and Naples. She confirms that politics matter, and documents how the political orientation of local governments affects local models of integration (2006a, 93). The author identifies two local models: a co- operative model typical of left-wing administrations and a non-co-operative model typical of right-wing administrations. The co-operative model tends towards a logic of governance and thus adopts a role of coordination and support of third-sector organizations (Caponio 2006a, 248). This model is oriented towards collective recognition of immigrant communities, often through immigrant associations (Caponio 2006a, 209 and 248-249). Caponio explains that left-wing administrations “favor policies oriented towards cultural recognition” and encourage immigrants’ participation by working towards the “construction of a multiethnic and multicultural society, based on pacific cohabitation and solidarity” (Caponio 2006a, 249; my translation). Overall, in line with their definition of immigration as “a resource for society,” left-wing administrations tend to promote a discourse that depicts “immigrants as new citizens” and “people entitled to rights, who must be welcomed” (Caponio 2006a, 249; my translation).

In contrast with left-wing administrations, the non-co-operative model typical of right-wing administrations tends to 1) limit public interventions and devolve the management of integration to the third sector, and 2) implement “policies directed to support processes of integration of individuals and/or assist them in particularly difficult situations” (Caponio 2006a, 249-253).20 _{This approach to integration is more fragmented,} and is oriented towards individual insertion rather than collective recognition (Caponio

30

2006a, 252-253). Caponio (2006a, 91) also observes that immigration and integration issues tend to divide political actors by creating “cross-cutting cleavages” within the same political spectrum. In this context, a major role is played by the increasing power of the anti-immigrant party, the Northern League, which has resulted in the strong politicization of the discourse on migration (Caponio 2006a, 247). This has been accompanied by growing anxieties over “the electoral cost” of pro-immigrant policies for parties on both sides of the political divide (2006a, 104).21

Francesca Campomori further develops Caponio’s study on Italian cities by examining the relationship between local governments and the governance of immigration. In her book, Immigration and local citizenship: the governance of integration in Italy

(Immigrazione e cittadinanza locale: la governance dell’integrazione in Italia) (2008), she

argues that the relationship between the public and the private sectors is particularly important in explaining variations in the approach to integration adopted by local actors. She observes that long-established patterns, developed before the arrival of immigrants in Italy in the 1980s, affect the integration policies in Italy independent of the current political orientation of particular cities.

The author explores the reasons behind territorial differences in Italy and the different ways public-private relationships have developed in different cities. To do so, she compares three Italian cities representative of different parts of Italy (Vicenza in the North, Prato in the Center, and Caserta in the South), selecting two cities in the North and Center with different political subcultures: the “white,” or Catholic, Vicenza, and the “red,” or communist, Prato. In a section titled “The dimension of governance: Political subcultures

21 _{In the conclusion of her study, Caponio suggests going beyond an overly simplistic dichotomy between} right-wing and left-wing administrations, and considering whether official attitudes towards integration are also affected by 1) “cross-cutting cleavages” and the numerous actors involved in the political arena, 2) the high politicization of the discourse on migration (2006a, 247), and 3) the increased “electoral cost” (2006a, 104) and the “logic oriented toward consensus” (2006a, 107) that goes hand-in-hand with the growth of anti- immigrant political parties (2006a, 104). The three factors listed above account for important variations between cities with superficially similar political orientations, because they influence the general approach towards immigrants’ social integration in ways that transcend a simple left/right division. In addition to Caponio’s analysis, studies on left-wing administrations uncover major conflicts between stated aims and the reality of practical governance. Però’s Inclusionary Rhetoric, Exclusionary Practices: Left-wing Politics and

Migrants in Italy (2007) focuses on the case of left-wing administrations in Bologna. It points out that there

can be critical discrepancies between left-wing actors’ inclusive discourses and their exclusionary practices (see also Caponio 2005, 948). In the book Onions for Breakfast (Cipolle a Colazione), Paola Bordandini & Roberto Cartocci (2009) focus on the shortcomings of certain left-wing administrations that underestimated the impact of immigration on the Italian population. They argue that in order to reinforce viable cohabitation, left-wing local administrations should have found an equilibrium between “open” policies of integration on the one hand, and “reassuring” policies on the other. They note that a lack of “reassuring” policies has fed Italians’ perception of increasing “insecurity,” and has resulted in high tensions between Italian and immigrant groups.

31

and characteristics of the third sector in Italy,” Campomori (2008, 76) points out that the “white” and “red” subcultures of the territory account for different administrative styles and forms of local governance.

The institutional arrangements linked to specific political subcultures can in fact solidify over time, with a long-term effect on the way public and private interests are articulated. Table 1.1. shows the differences between the “white” and “red” local administrations.22

TABLE 1.1. Difference between “red” and “white” administrations Political subculture “Red” or Communist “White” or Catholic Administrative

style

Interventionist or co-operative model

Top-down coordination of the third sector and co-operation

Laissez-faire or non-co-operative model

Devolution to the third sector

Main third-sector actors

Lay organizations Catholic organizations

Sources: Campomori 2008.

Campomori’s findings on the effects of different Italian political subcultures can be juxtaposed with Caponio’s findings on the political orientations of local administrations. Both demonstrate that cities with a “red” political culture and/or left-wing political orientations tend to adopt an interventionist approach to integration through the active coordination of the third sector. “Red” cities are more likely to recognize cultural diversity and participation, in line with their objective of constructing a multiethnic and multicultural society. On the other hand, cities with a “white” political culture and/or right- wing political orientation tend to adopt a non-interventionist approach to integration and to devolve power to the third sector, and in particular to the Church. By contrast to the collective orientation of left-wing governments, they tend to adopt policies to support processes of integration at the individual level, rather than encouraging organized, active participation in the receiving society.

A third author, Mantovan, adopts a more sociological approach centered on multiple local actors. In order to study the role of these actors in participation, in her book

Immigration and Citizenship. Self-organizations and participation of migrants in Italy

(Immigrazione e cittadinanza. Auto-organizzazione e partecipazione dei migranti in Italia)

22 _{Campomori notes that the “red” city of Prato and the “white” city of Vicenza have developed different} local approaches to general issues and approaches to integration despite similar models of economic growth (small or medium entrepreneurship) and social capital (medium or high) (see also Messina 2002).

32

(2007), she elaborates the concept of the “local field of immigration” referring to the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of “field.” Mantovan defines the local field of immigration as follows:

a transversal domain that includes subjects belonging to different spheres […] that is, people (Italian and migrants) who, with different roles and interests, are invested in the area of immigration […] and who thus have an interest in influencing what is happening in that domain (Mantovan 2007, 145; my translation).

This concept is extremely useful for my theoretical approach because it identifies the role of multiple actors, including people of migrant background, and grasps how they affect the domain of immigration through their interaction.

In her book, Mantovan (2007) refers back to Hassan Bousetta, who in his article of 1997, “Citizenship and political participation in France and the Netherlands: reflection on two local cases,” introduces the concept of “local integration field” for studying the political participation of people of migrant background at the local level (1997, 221). Bousetta explains that, “the concept of a local integration field is a freely adapted interpretation of the concept of ‘field’ developed by Bourdieu in several contexts (see Bourdieu 1981, 1992) and of the policy domain proposed by Laumann & Knoke (1987, 10).” However, while Bousetta is more interested in multiple institutional actors, Mantovan looks at both institutional and non-institutional actors.

In this study, I use the concept of “local realm of immigration” to look at how local actors get involved in the sphere of migration, and how they affect participation. The concept of “field” used by Mantovan refers directly to Bourdieu’s sociological approach, however, in this dissertation, I do not draw directly from Bourdieu. For this reason, to avoid confusion, I borrow Mantovan’s concept, and replace the word “field” with “realm.” As I explained earlier in this chapter, the word “realm” refers to the idea of a structured space shaped by actors mobilized around the enjeu of immigration (see Dufour 2012). In this view, the word “realm” suggests not simply the presence of local actors, but a way of thinking about their interaction, and how they promote participation. Finally, the concept allows us to place immigrant activists as part of this interaction, and as the main contributors to the structuration of this space, through their involvement in the sphere of immigration and alliances.

In the following section I will present an overview of the literature that focuses on civic and political channels of participation.

33