Advertisement

From Temporary to Persistent Segregation: Camps, Integration Villages and Transit Estates

  • Gaja Maestri
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in European Political Sociology book series (PSEPS)

Abstract

This chapter introduces the three research cases: the Italian Roma camps and the French integration villages and transit estates. The first section on the Roma camps starts with a summary of their history since they were initiated in the 1990s. It then outlines their main characteristics and shows how they have persisted for more than 20 years, despite demands from advocacy groups for their closure. The second part focusses on the integration villages for Roma, their history and their type of persistence, which is characterised by individual extensions granted by the government following civil society mobilisation. The third section on the former transit estates for Algerian migrants charts the period from their formation during the postwar period until their final termination in the 1980s. Finally, the chapter concludes by presenting the methods of data collection employed in the research (in-depth interviews, observation and policy documents analysis) and how I tackled the issues encountered in accessing the field.

Bibliography

  1. Abdallah, Mogniss H. 2006. “Cités de transit: en finir avec un provisoire qui dure.” Plein droit GISTI 68 (1): 52–56.Google Scholar
  2. Adoma. 2014. “Présentation de la contribution d’Adoma à la mise en oeuvre de la circulaire du 26 août 2012 relative au démantèlement des campements illicites.” http://romeurope.org/IMG/pdf/2_presentation_de_la_mission_adoma.pdf.
  3. ———. 2016. “Rapport d’activité hébergement 2016.” La solidarité en actions. Direction de l’Hébergement.Google Scholar
  4. Aguilera, Thomas. 2012. “Ungovernable Dark Side of the City? Governing Slums in Paris and Madrid: Governance, Urban Policies and Illegalisms.” International Conference “Governing the Metropolis: Powers and Territories—New Directions for Research”, 28–29 November, Marie de Paris, France.Google Scholar
  5. Amnesty International. 2013. Double Standards: Italy’s Housing Policies Discriminate Against Roma. London: Amnesty International.Google Scholar
  6. Anzaldi, Andrea, and Carlo Stasolla. 2010. Esclusi e Ammassati. Rapporto di ricerca sulla condizione dei minori rom nel villaggio attrezzato di via di Salone a Roma. Roma: Associazione 21 Luglio.Google Scholar
  7. ———. 2011. Report Casilino 900. Parole e immagini di una diaspora senza diritti. Frosinone: Nuova Stampa Caramitti.Google Scholar
  8. Armillei, Riccardo, and Gaja Maestri. 2018. “Camps, Civil Society Organizations, and the Reproduction of Marginalization: Italian and French ‘Solidarity/Inclusion’ Villages for Romani People.” In Camps Revisited: Multifaceted Spatialities of a Modern Political Technology, edited by Irit Katz, Diana Martin, and Claudio Minca, 257–78. London: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  9. Associazione 21 Luglio. 2014a. Campi Nomadi s.p.a. Segregare, concentrare e allontanare i rom. I costi a Roma nel 2013. Frosinone: Nuova Stampa.Google Scholar
  10. ———. 2014b. “Senza Luce. Le politiche della Giunta Marino, le comunità rom e sinte nella città di Roma e il ‘Best House Rom’.” http://www.21luglio.org/senza-luce-rapporto-sulle-politiche-della-giunta-marino-le-comunita-rom-sinte-nella-citta-roma-il-best-house-rom-marzo-2014/.
  11. ———. 2018a. “Il piano di carta. Il ‘Piano rom’ del Comune di Roma: uno strappo con il passato, verso obiettivi irraggiungibili.”Google Scholar
  12. ———. 2018b. “Rapporto Annuale 2017.”Google Scholar
  13. ———. 2018c. “Camping River. Le verità nascoste nelle pieghe della propaganda.” 1 août 2018. http://www.21luglio.org/21luglio/camping-river-le-verita-nascoste-nelle-pieghe-della-propaganda/.
  14. Barbulescu, Horia. 2012. “Constructing the Roma People as a Societal Threat: The Roma Expulsions from France.” European Journal of Science and Theology 8 (1): 279–89.Google Scholar
  15. Bernardot, Marc. 2008. “De SONACOTRA à ADOMA (1992–2006). Eléments de cartographie des nouvelles institutions de gestion de l’immigration et de l’intégration.” Asylon(s) 4.Google Scholar
  16. Bessone, Magali, Milena Doytcheva, Jean-Baptiste Duez, Charles Girard, and Sophie Guérard de Latour. 2014. “Integrating or Segregating Roma Migrants in France in the Name of Respect: A Spatial Analysis of the ‘Villages d’insertion’.” Journal of Urban Affairs 36 (2): 182–96. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Blanc-Chaléard, Marie-Claude. 2008. Des bidonvilles à la ville: migrants des trente glorieuses et résorptions en région parisienne. Paris: Université de Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne.Google Scholar
  18. Bonadonna, Federico. 2011. “La segregazione amichevole per gli ‘zingari’ in Italia.” Alternative per il Socialismo 14 (1): 192–228.Google Scholar
  19. Cahn, Claude, and Espelth Guild. 2010. Recent Migration of Roma in Europe. OSCE and Council of Europe. Google Scholar
  20. Castañeda, Ernesto. 2011. “Places of Stigma: Ghettos, Barrios, and Banlieues.” In The Ghetto: Contemporary Global Issues and Controversies, edited by Ray Hutchison and Bruce D. Haynes. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  21. Clough Marinaro, Isabella. 2009. “Between Surveillance and Exile: Biopolitics and the Roma in Italy.” Bulletin of Italian Politics 1 (2): 265–87.Google Scholar
  22. Cohen, Muriel. 2013. Des familles invisibles. Politiques publiques et trajectoires résidentielles de l’immigration algérienne (1945–1985). Paris: Université de Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne.Google Scholar
  23. Cohen, Muriel, and Cédric David. 2012. “‘Cités de transit’: The Urban Treatment of Poverty During Decolonisation.” Traduit par Oliver Waine. Metropolitiques, March. http://www.metropolitiques.eu/Cites-de-transit-the-urban.html.
  24. Comune di Roma. 1996. Ordinanza del Sindaco n.80 del 23-01-1996. Oggetto: Direttive per la verifica della presenza dei nomadi nei campi sosta e negli insediamenti spontanei dislocati nel territorio cittadino. Vol. 80.Google Scholar
  25. ———. 2002. Piano Regolatore Sociale. Per un nuovo Welfare. Welfare Locale.Google Scholar
  26. ———. 2009. “Regolamento per la gestione dei villaggi attrezzati per le comunità nomadi nella regione Lazio.” Commissario Delegato per l’emergenza nomadi nel territorio della Regione Lazio.Google Scholar
  27. Conseil Regional D’Île-de-France. 2005. L’Aide regionale en faveur de la prise en compte des situations d’urgence sociale.Google Scholar
  28. Consiglio dei Ministri. 2008. Decreto del Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri, 21 maggio 2008. Dichiarazione dello stato di emergenza in relazione agli insediamenti di comunita’ nomadi nel territorio delle regioni Campania, Lazio e Lombardia. Vol. GU n.122.Google Scholar
  29. Corte Suprema di Cassazione. 2013. Sentenza n.9687.Google Scholar
  30. Council of Europe. 2012a. Council of Europe Descriptive Glossary of Terms Relating to Roma Issues. http://a.cs.coe.int/team20/cahrom/documents/Glossary%20Roma%20EN%20version%2018%20May%202012.pdf.
  31. ———. 2012b. “Estimates and Official Numbers of Roma in Europe.” Document Prepared by the Support Team of the Special Representative of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe for Roma Issues.Google Scholar
  32. Cousin, Grégoire. 2013. “L’évacuation de bidonvilles roms. Circulaires et cycles médiatiques.” Métropolitiques, novembre. http://www.metropolitiques.eu/L-evacuation-de-bidonvilles-roms.html.
  33. Dalla Zuanna, Gianpiero. 2013. La popolazione in forte disagio abitativo in Italia. La condizione dei richiedenti asilo, dei rifugiati e dei Rom. Rome: Cittalia - ANCI.Google Scholar
  34. Daniele, Ulderico. 2011. “‘Nomads’ in the Eternal City: Local Policies and Roma Participation in the ‘Emergency’ Era.” Géocarrefour 86 (1): 15–23.Google Scholar
  35. Di Maggio, Maria, and Luisa Parisi. 2008. “Plans & Slums. The Roma Right to inhabit across Europe. Learning from Roma and back.” Roma Time 2 (5): 1–69.Google Scholar
  36. DIHAL. 2011. French Government Strategy for Roma Integration Within the Framework of the Communication from the Commission of 5 April 2011 and the Council Conclusions of 19 May 2011.Google Scholar
  37. ———. 2013. “Carte des départements ayant indiqué la présence de campements illicites sur leur territoire.”Google Scholar
  38. ———. 2016. “Fil Infos.”Google Scholar
  39. ———. 2017a. “Actions de résorption des bidonvilles soutenues par la DIHAL. Bilan 2016 et panorama 2017.”Google Scholar
  40. ———. 2017b. “Bilan des actions soutenues en 2015–2016 par la Dihal, la DGCS et la DHUP.” Anticipation et accompagnement des démantèlements de campements illicites Résorption des bidonvilles.Google Scholar
  41. ———. 2017c. “État des lieux national des campements illicites et bidonvilles Décembre 2017 (10ème édition).” Pôle “campements illicites et résorption des bidonvilles”.Google Scholar
  42. ———. 2017d. “Fil Infos.” 24.Google Scholar
  43. Doytcheva, Milena. 2012. “Politiques municipales et familles roms migrantes: entre infra-droit et politiques de l’hospitalité.” In L’Etat des droits Pratiques des droits dans l’action publique, 25–26 June. Université de Paris 13 and SciencesPo, Paris.Google Scholar
  44. European Roma Rights Center. 2000. “Campland: Racial Segregation of Roma in Italy.” Country Report Series No. 9.Google Scholar
  45. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. 2012. The Situation of Roma in 11 EU Member States: Survey Results at a Glance. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  46. Fassin, Eric. 2010. “Pourquoi les Roms?” Mediapart (blog), septembre 12. http://blogs.mediapart.fr/blog/eric-fassin/120910/pourquoi-les-roms.
  47. Groupe interministériel permanent pour la résorption de l’habitat insalubre. 1971. “Circulaire du 27 aout 1971 prise pour application de la loi n° 70-612 du 10 juillet 1970 tendant à faciliter la suppression de l’habitat insalubre”.Google Scholar
  48. Hammersley, Martyn, and Paul Atkinson. 2007. Ethnography: Principles in Practice. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Hmed, Choukri. 2008. “Social Movements ‘On a Head of a Pin’? The Role of Physical Space in the Process of Contention in the Case of Mobilizations in Public Housing for ‘Isolated’ Foreigners.” POLITIX 21 (84): 145–165.Google Scholar
  50. Legros, Olivier. 2011. “Les ‘villages roms’ ou la réinvention des cités de transit.” Métropolitiques.eu, mars. http://www.metropolitiques.eu/Les-villages-roms-ou-la.html.
  51. Legros, Olivier, and Martin Olivera. 2014. “La gouvernance métropolitaine à l’épreuve de la mobilité contrainte des ‘Roms migrants’ en région parisienne.” EspacesTemps.net, mars. http://www.espacestemps.net/articles/lmobilite-contrainte-des-roms-migrants-en-region-parisienne/.
  52. Legros, Olivier, and Tommaso Vitale. 2011. “Les migrants roms dans les villes françaises et italiennes: mobilités, régulations et marginalité.” Géocarrefour 86 (1): 3–14.Google Scholar
  53. Ligue des droits de l’Homme, and ERRC. 2014. “Recensement des évacuations forcées de lieux de vie occupés par des Roms étrangers en France (Année 2013).”Google Scholar
  54. ———. 2015. “Recensement des évacuations forcées de lieux de vie occupés par des Roms étrangers en France (Année 2014).”Google Scholar
  55. Lucassen, Leo. 1998. “Eternal Vagrants? State Formation, Migration and Travelling Groups in Western Europe, 1350–1914.” In Gypsies and Other Itinerant Groups, edited by Leo Lucassen, Wim Willems, and Annemarie Cottaar, 55–73. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  56. Maestri, Gaja. 2016. “From Nomads to Squatters: Towards a Deterritorialisation of Roma Exceptionalism Through Assemblage Thinking.” In Re-thinking Life at the Margins: Assemblage, Subjects and Spaces, edited by Michele Lancione, 122–35. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  57. ———. 2017a. “Are They Nomads, Travellers or Roma? An Analysis of the Multiple Effects of Naming Assemblages.” Area 49 (1): 18–24.Google Scholar
  58. ———. 2017b. “Extensive Territorial Stigma and Ways of Coping with It: The Stigmatisation of the Roma in Italy and France.” In Negative Neighbourhood Reputation and Place Attachment, edited by Paul Kirkness and Andreas Tijé-Dra, 42–59. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  59. Mikecz, Robert. 2012. “Interviewing Elites: Addressing Methodological Issues.” Qualitative Inquiry 18 (6): 482–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Ministère de l’aménagement du territoire, de l’équipement, du logement et du tourisme. 1972. “Circulaire du 19 avril 1972 relative aux cités de transit.”Google Scholar
  61. Ministère de l’égalité des territoires et du logement. 2008. Circulaire du 26 mars 2008 relative à la mise en œuvre des opérations de maîtrise d’œuvre urbaine et sociale spécifique insalubrité (MOUS insalubrité).Google Scholar
  62. Monasta, Lorenzo. 2005. Romá macedoni e kosovari che vivono in ‘campi nomadi’ in italia. Stato di salute e condizioni di vita per bambini da zero a cinque anni d’età. Acapulco: Universidad Autónoma de Guerrero.Google Scholar
  63. Moumen, Abderahmen. 2012. “Housing the ‘Harkis’: Long-Term Segregation.” Metropolitiques, avril. http://www.metropolitiques.eu/Housing-the-harkis-long-term.html.
  64. Noiriel, Gérard. 1988. Le Creuset Français; Histoire De L’immigration (19ème–20ème Siècles). Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  65. Okely, Judith. 1983. The Traveller-Gypsies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Olivera, Martin. 2009. “Le Roms migrants en France - une réalité qui dérange.” diversité 159: 179–88.Google Scholar
  67. ———. 2015. “Roma/Gypsies in France: The Extent of Diversities Versus the Permanence of Public Policies.” In Virtual Citizenship? Roma Communities, ICTs and Inclusion Policies in Europe, edited by Alfredo Alietti, Martin Olivera, and Veronica Riniolo. New York and Milan: MacGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  68. Ousset, Xavier. 1980. “La cité de transit… vers quoi?” Recherche Sociale 73: 35–43.Google Scholar
  69. Parker, Owen. 2012. “Roma and the Politics of EU Citizenship in France: Everyday Security and Resistance.” Journal of Common Market Studies 50 (3): 475–91.Google Scholar
  70. Parlement français. 1964. “Loi n° 64-1229 du 14 décembre 1964 tendant à faciliter aux fins de reconstruction ou d’aménagement, l’expropriation des terrains sur lesquels sont édifiés des locaux d’habitation insalubres et irrécupérables, communément appelés ‘bidonvilles’.”Google Scholar
  71. ———. 1966. “Décret n° 66-655 du 31 août 1966 fixant des délais et des règles de procédure propres à accélérer les opérations de constatation, de liquidation et de règlement des travaux de construction effectués pour le compte de l’Etat, des collectivités et établissements publics et des organismes d’habitation à loyer modéré.”Google Scholar
  72. ———. 1968. “Arrêté du 1er octobre 1968 relatif aux conditions d’attribution dans la région parisienne des logements des organismes d’habitations à loyer modéré.”Google Scholar
  73. ———. 1970. “Loi n° 70-612 du 10 juillet 1970 tendant à faciliter la suppression de l’habitat insalubre.”Google Scholar
  74. Patton, Michael Quinn. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  75. Pew Research Center. 2014. A Fragile Rebound for EU Image on Eve of European Parliament Elections. Washington, DC: Pew Global Project Attitudes.Google Scholar
  76. Préfet de la Region D’île-De-France. 2016. “Proposition de Stratégie Régionale pour les Campments illicites en île-De-France.”Google Scholar
  77. Presidente della Repubblica. 2007. Decreto Legge “Misure urgenti in materia di espulsioni e di allontanamenti per terrorismo e per motivi imperativi di pubblica sicurezza”.Google Scholar
  78. Regione Lazio. 1985. Legge Regional 82/1985 “Norme in favore dei rom”.Google Scholar
  79. Roche, Elise. 2013. “Les villages d’insertion: un événement spatial? Territoires et temporalités des dispositifs de relogements des bidonvilles en Seine-Saint-Denis.” Café Géo, 13 March. Café de la Cloche.Google Scholar
  80. Roma Capitale. 2016. “Documento Unico di Programmazione 2016–2018.” Roma.Google Scholar
  81. ———. 2017a. “Deliberazione n. 105. Piano di Indirizzo di Roma Capitale per l’inclusione delle Popolazioni Rom, Sinti e Caminanti.”Google Scholar
  82. ———. 2017b. “Ordinanza della Sindaca n.102 del 4 Luglio 2017.”Google Scholar
  83. Romeurope. 2012. Les ‘Roms migrants’ en Ile de France. Etat des lieux provisoire des expériences d’hébergement et de logement d’habitants de squats et bidonvilles. Paris: Romeurope.Google Scholar
  84. Rothéa, Xavier. 2003. France, pays des droits des rom? Lyon: Carobella ex-natura.Google Scholar
  85. Sigona, Nando. 2002. Figli del ghetto. Gli italiani, i campi nomadi e l’invenzione degli ‘zingari’. Civezzano: Nonluoghi Libere Edizioni.Google Scholar
  86. ———. 2003. “How Can a ‘Nomad’ Be a Refugee? Kosovo Roma and Labelling Policy in Italy.” Sociology 37 (1): 69–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. ———. 2011. “The Governance of Romani People in Italy: Discourse, Policy and Practice.” Journal of Modern Italian Studies 16 (5): 590–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. ———. 2015. “Campzenship: Reimagining the Camp as a Social and Political Space.” Citizenship Studies 19 (1): 1–15.Google Scholar
  89. Simhandl, Katrin. 2009. “Beyond Boundaries? Comparing the Construction of the Political Categories ‘Gypsies’ and ‘Roma’ Before and After EU Enlargement.” In Romani Politics in Contemporary Europe: Poverty, Ethnic Mobilization, and the Neoliberal Order, edited by Nando Sigona and Nidhi Trehan, 72–93. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Stasolla, Carlo. 2012. Sulla pelle dei rom. Roma: Edizioni Alegre.Google Scholar
  91. Tricart, Jean-Paul. 1977. “Genèse d’un dispositif d’assistance: les ‘cités de transit’.” Revue française de sociologie 18 (4): 601–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. UNAR. 2012. “National Strategy for the Inclusion of Roma, Sinti and Caminanti Communities.” European Commission Communication no. 173/2011.Google Scholar
  93. Ville d’Aubervilliers. 2017. “Séance du Conseil Municipal du 15 November 2017.”Google Scholar
  94. Ville de Montreuil. 2012. “Rapport de la mission d’information et d’évaluation de la maîtrise d’œuvre urbaine et sociale ‘Roms’.”Google Scholar
  95. Weil, Patrick. 2005. La France et ses étrangers. L’aventure d’une politique de l’immigration de 1938 à nos jours. Folio Histoire. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Media, Communication and SociologyUniversity of LeicesterLeicesterUK

Personalised recommendations