Advertisement

The Ambiguity of the Roma Camps: Framing Co-optation

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

Abstract

This chapter argues that the ambiguity of the Roma camps has facilitated the co-optation of pro-Roma associations. The first part of the chapter discusses the relationship between ambiguity, policy-making and institutional camps, and then focusses on how this ambiguity emerged in Rome. By drawing on policy documents and interviews, the following part scrutinises the ambivalent policy design of the camps, characterised by unclear policy goals and temporal duration, and by an undefined target population. The final section of the chapter unpicks the effects of institutional ambiguity on the framing strategies of subcontracted associations, often accused of contradictorily operating in-between Roma advocacy and compliance with segregation. However, subcontractors draw on this ambiguousness to develop a wide array of discursive strategies that reconcile their work in the camps with the goals of Roma inclusion, which facilitates the persistence of this ghettoisation.

Bibliography

  1. Achilli, Luigi, and Lucas Oesch. 2016. “Spaces of Ambiguity: Palestinian Refugee Camps in Jordan.” A Contrario 2 (23): 17–36.Google Scholar
  2. Agamben, Giorgio. 1998. Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Agier, Michel. 2011a. “From Refuge the Ghetto Is Born: Contemporary Figures of Heterotopias.” In The Ghetto: Contemporary Global Issues and Controversies, edited by Ray Hutchison and Bruce D. Haynes, 265–92. Boulder: Westview Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. ———. 2011b. Managing the Undesirables: Refugee Camps and Humanitarian Government. Malden: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  5. Alexander, Michael. 2003. “Local Policies Towards Migrants as an Expression of Host-Stranger Relations: A Proposed Typology.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 29 (3): 411–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Associazione 21 Luglio. 2012. Diritti Rubati. Rapporto sulle condizioni di vita dei minori rom e delle loro famiglie nel “villaggio attrezzato” si via della Cesarina a Roma.Google Scholar
  7. Barberis, Eduardo. 2009. “Dimensione territoriale delle politiche per gli immigrati.” In La dimensione territoriale delle politiche sociali in Italia, edited by Yuri Kazepov. Rome: Carocci.Google Scholar
  8. Benford, Robert D. and David A. Snow. 2000. “Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment.” Annual Review of Sociology 26: 611–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bifulco, Lavinia. 2016. “Citizenship and Governance at a Time of Territorialization: The Italian Local Welfare Between Innovation and Fragmentation.” European Urban and Regional Studies 23 (4): 628–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bonifazi, Corrado, Frank Heins, Salvatore Strozza, and Mattia Vitiello. 2009. “The Italian Transition from an Emigration to Immigration Country.” IDEA Working Papers No. 5.Google Scholar
  11. Burgalassi, Marco. 2012. “Ascesa e declino del welfare locale in Italia.” Rassegna di Servizio Sociale 2: 16–31.Google Scholar
  12. Comune di Roma. 1993. Deliberazione Commissario Straordinario del 3 Giugno 1993 n. 117. Regolamento per i campi sosta attrezzati destinati alle popolazioni Rom o di origine nomade. Vol. 117.Google Scholar
  13. ———. 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
  14. ———. 1999. Delibera di Consiglio Comunale n. 31/99 “Linee programmatiche di indiritzzo per gli interventi dell’Amministrazione Comunale finalizzati all’integrazione delle popolazioni Rom, Sinti e Camminanti”.Google Scholar
  15. ———. 2002. Piano Regolatore Sociale. Per un nuovo Welfare. Welfare Locale.Google Scholar
  16. ———. 2007. “Patto per Roma Sicuradel 18-05-2007.Google Scholar
  17. ———. 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
  18. 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
  19. Consiglio di Stato. 2011. Sentenza n. 6050.Google Scholar
  20. Corriere della Sera. 1994. “Sono PDS e voglio la ronda anti zingari,” 17 June 1994.Google Scholar
  21. ———. 1995a. “L’assessore Piva al Papa: ‘presto i campi sosta per i rom’,” 9 June 1995.Google Scholar
  22. ———. 1995b. “Rivolta contro i campi sosta,” 14 Decembre 1995.Google Scholar
  23. ———. 1995c. “Nomadi, sindaci pds contro Rutelli,” 18 Decembre 1995.Google Scholar
  24. Corte Suprema di Cassazione. 2013. Sentenza n. 9687.Google Scholar
  25. Costamagna, Francesco. 2013. “The Provision of Social Services in Italy: Between Federalization and Europeanization.” In Social Services of General Interest in the EU, edited by Ulla Neergaard, Erika Szyszczak, Johan Willem van de Gronden, and Markus Krajewski, 541–68. The Hague: TMC Asser Press/Springer.Google Scholar
  26. Daniele, Ulderico and Greta Persico. 2012. “Dentro la politica dei campi: la decostruzione dell’intervento sociale nei ‘campi nomadi’ come primo passo per immaginare nuove governance.” In Fifth Annual Conference ESPAnet Italy 2012, 20–22. September, Rome.Google Scholar
  27. De Luca, Alberto, Francesca Governa, and Michele Lancione. 2009. “Politiche Della Casa in Europa. Differenze Nazionali e Tendenze Unificanti Dell’Housing Sociale in Europa.” Rivista Geografica Italiana 116: 349–78.Google Scholar
  28. ECRI. 2002. 2nd Report on Italy Adopted on the 22 June 2001. Strasbourg: ECRI.Google Scholar
  29. Ferrera, Maurizio. 1996. “The ‘Southern Model’ of Welfare in Social Europe.” Journal of European Social Policy 6 (2): 17–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Finotelli, Claudia, and Giuseppe Sciortino. 2009. “The Importance of Being Southern: The Making of Policies of Immigration Control in Italy.” European Journal of Migration and Law 11 (2): 119–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fontanari, Elena, and Giulia Borri. 2017. “Introduction. Civil Society on the Edge: Actions in Support and Against Refugees in Italy and Germany.” Mondi Migranti 3: 23–51.Google Scholar
  32. Giaccaria, Paolo, and Claudio Minca. 2011. “Topographies/Topologies of the Camp: Auschwitz as a Spatial Threshold.” Political Geography 30 (1): 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Givens, Terri, and Adam Luedtke. 2005. “European Immigration Policies in Comparative Perspective: Issue Salience, Partisanship and Immigrant Rights.” Comparative European Politics 3 (1): 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hein, Christopher. 2000. “Italy: Gateway to Europe But Not the Gatekeeper?” In Kosovo’s Refugees in the European Union, edited by Joanne van Selm. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  35. ———, ed. 2010. Rifugiati: vent’anni di storia del diritto d’asilo in Italia. Roma: Donzelli Editore.Google Scholar
  36. Holston, James, and Arjun Appadurai. 1996. “Cities and Citizenship.” Public Culture 8: 187–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Howlett, M., and M. Ramesh. 2014. “The Two Orders of Governance Failure: Design Mismatches and Policy Capacity Issues in Modern Governance.” Policy and Society 33: 317–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Howlett, M., M. Ramesh, and Xun Wu. 2015. “Understanding the Persistence of Policy Failures: The Role of Politics, Governance and Uncertainty.” Public Policy and Administration 30 (3–4): 209–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hyndman, Jennifer. 2000. Managing Displacement: Refugees and the Politics of Humanitarianism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  40. Ingram, Helen M., Anne L. Schneider, and Peter deLeon. 2007. “Social Construction and Policy Design.” In Theories of the Policy Process, edited by Paul A. Sabatier, 93–126. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  41. Isin, Engin, and Kim Rygiel. 2007. “Abject Spaces: Frontiers, Zones, Camps.” In The Logics of Biopower and the War on Terror: Living, Dying, Surviving, edited by Elizabeth Dauphinee and Christina Masters, 181–203. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Jensen, Carsten. 2008. “Worlds of Welfare Services and Transfers.” Journal of European Social Policy 18 (2): 151–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lascoumes, Pierre, and Patrick Le Galès. 2007. “Introduction: Understanding Public Policy Through Its Instruments—From the Nature of Instruments to the Sociology of Public Policy Instrumentation.” Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions 20 (1): 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mahoney, James, and Kathleen Thelen, eds. 2010. Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency, and Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Masiello, Sonia. 2009. Roma periSferica. La città, le periferie, gli immigrati, la scuola. Milan: FrancoAngeli.Google Scholar
  46. Matland, Richard E. 1995. “Synthesizing the Implementation Literature: The Ambiguity-Conflict Model of Policy Implementation.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART 5 (2): 145–74.Google Scholar
  47. Minca, Claudio. 2015. “Counter-Camps and Other Spatialities.” Political Geography 49: 90–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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. Universidad Autónoma de Guerrero.Google Scholar
  49. Nyers, Peter. 2006. Rethinking Refugees. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Parlamento Italiano. 2000. “Legge 8 novembre 2000, n. 328. ‘Legge quadro per la realizzazione del sistema integrato di interventi e servizi sociali’.” pubblicata nella Gazzetta Ufficiale n. 265 del 13 novembre 2000 - Supplemento ordinario n. 186.Google Scholar
  51. Però, Davide. 1999. “Next to the Dog Pound: Institutional Discourses and Practices About Rom Refugees in Left-Wing Bologna.” Modern Italy 4 (2): 207–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pierson, Paul. 1993. “When Effect Becomes Cause: Policy Feedback and Political Change.” World Politics 45 (4): 595–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Radaelli, Claudio M., and Vivien A. Schmidt. 2004. “Conclusions.” West European Politics 27 (2): 364–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ranci, Costanzo, and Emmanuele Pavolini. 2015. Le politiche di welfare. Bologna: Il mulino.Google Scholar
  55. Regione Lazio. 1985. Legge Regional 82/1985 “Norme in favore dei rom”.Google Scholar
  56. Rochefort, David A., and Roger W. Cobb, eds. 1994. The Politics of Problem Definition: Shaping the Policy Agenda. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
  57. Roma Capitale. 2016. “Documento Unico di Programmazione 2016–2018.” Roma.Google Scholar
  58. ———. 2017. “Deliberazione n. 105. Piano di Indirizzo di Roma Capitale per l’inclusione delle Popolazioni Rom, Sinti e Caminanti.”Google Scholar
  59. Sassen, Saskia. 2002. “Towards Post-national and Denationalized Citizenship.” In Handbook of Citizenship Studies, edited by Engin Isin and Bryan S. Turner, 277–91. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  60. Sigona, Nando. 2002. Figli del ghetto. Gli italiani, i campi nomadi e l’invenzione degli “zingari”. Civezzano: Nonluoghi Libere Edizioni.Google Scholar
  61. ———. 2003. “How Can a ‘Nomad’ Be a Refugee? Kosovo Roma and Labelling Policy in Italy.” Sociology 37 (1): 69–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. ———. 2005. “Locating ‘The Gypsy Problem’. The Roma in Italy: Stereotyping, Labelling and ‘Nomad Camps’.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 31 (4): 741–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. ———. 2011. “The Governance of Romani People in Italy: Discourse, Policy and Practice.” Journal of Modern Italian Studies 16 (5): 590–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. ———. 2015. “Campzenship: Reimagining the Camp as a Social and Political Space.” Citizenship Studies 19 (1): 1–15.Google Scholar
  65. 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
  66. Stasolla, Carlo. 2012. Sulla pelle dei rom. Roma: Edizioni Alegre.Google Scholar
  67. Tosi, Antonio, and Marco Cremaschi. 2001. Housing Policies in Italy. Vienna: Interdisciplinary Centre for Comparative Research in the Social Sciences (ICCR).Google Scholar
  68. UNAR. 2012. “National Strategy for the Inclusion of Roma, Sinti and Caminanti Communities.” European Commission Communication No. 173/2011.Google Scholar
  69. van Baar, Huub. 2011. “Europe’s Romaphobia: Problematization, Securitization, Nomadization.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 29: 203–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wacquant, Loïc. 2008. Urban Outcasts: A Comparative Sociology of Advanced Marginality. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  71. ———. 2011. “A Janus-Faced Institution of Ethnoracial Closure: A Sociological Specification of the Ghetto.” In The Ghetto: Contemporary Global Issues and Controversies, edited by Ray Hutchison and Bruce D. Haynes, 1–31. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  72. Zahariadis, Nikolaos. 2014. “Ambiguity and Multiple Streams.” In Theories of the Policy Process, edited by Paul A. Sabatier and Christopher M. Weible, 25–58. Cambridge, MA: Westview Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations