Advertisement

The Multilevel (Mis)Governance of Roma Migration in the City of Naples

  • Kitti Baracsi
Chapter
Part of the Migration, Diasporas and Citizenship book series (MDC)

Abstract

The city of Naples incorporates both migrant and Neapolitan actors in a complex system of diverse economies. The chapter shows the role of Roma migrants in the local economy and confronts it with the limits of policy discourses in considering Roma as economic actors. It enumerates interventions from the last few years that intended to position Roma as a 'resource' for the local economy. The analysis reveals discrepancies between these rather ad-hoc interventions and the general management of the 'Roma issue'; showing how diversity as a depoliticized concept and economy-based deservingness frames reproduce Roma as second-line citizens and racialized subjects in an ambiguous relation to informality. The chapter, looking at the multilevel (mis)governance of Roma migration, rereads the findings of ethnographic research on economic strategies in different Roma communities in the region of Campania.

References

  1. Agamben, G. (1996). Che cos’ è un campo. In Mezzi senza fine (pp. 35–41). Torino: Bollati Boringhieri.Google Scholar
  2. Bakó B. (2011). Mi házi magyarok vagyunk… In: Beszélő, 16/4.Google Scholar
  3. Barbagallo, F. (2014). Storia della camorra. Roma-Bari: Gius. Laterza & Figli.Google Scholar
  4. Belmonte, T. (1974, 1983). La fontana rotta. Vite napoletane. Booklet Milano.Google Scholar
  5. Buzalka, J. (2016). Book review. In M. Brazzabeni, M. I. Cunha, & M. Fotta (Eds.), Gypsy economy. Romani livelihoods and notions of worth in the 21st century (p. 263). New York: Berghahn Books. Intersections. East European Journal of Society and Politics, 2(4), 178–181.Google Scholar
  6. Chauvin, S., & Garcés-Mascareñas, B. (2014). Becoming less illegal: Deservingness frames and undocumented migrant incorporation. Sociology Compass, 8(4), 422–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clough Marinaro, I. (2017). The informal faces of the (neo-) ghetto: State confinement, formalization and multidimensional informalities in Italy’s Roma camps. International Sociology, 32(4), 545–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Di Nunzio, M. (2017). Marginality as a politics of limited entitlements: Street life and the dilemma of inclusion in urban Ethiopia. American Ethnologist, 44(1), 91–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dines, N. (2002). Urban renewal, immigration, and contested claims to public space: The case of piazza garibaldi in Naples. GeoJournal, 58(2), 177–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dines, N. (2012). Tuff city: Urban change and contested space in central Naples (Vol. 13). New York: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
  11. Fedyuk, O. (2011). Beyond motherhood: Ukrainian female labor migration to Italy (Doctoral dissertation, Central European University).Google Scholar
  12. Harney, N. (2006). Rumour, migrants, and the informal economies of Naples, Italy. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 26(9/10), 374–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hart, K. (2006). Bureaucratic form and the informal economy. In B. Guha-Khasnobis, R. Kanbur, & E. Ostrom (Eds.), Linking the formal and informal economy: Concepts and policies (pp. 21–35). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Hart, K. (2015). The promise and limits of ethnography. In M. Brazzabeni, M. I. Cunha, & M. Fotta (Eds.), Gypsy economy: Romani livelihoods and notions of worth in the 21st century. New York: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
  15. Laino, G. (2005). Italy: The Scampia discrict in Naples. In D. Ciaffi (Ed.), Neighbourhood housing debate (pp. 180–200). Milano: F. Angeli.Google Scholar
  16. National report on Labour and Social Inclusion of Roma People in Italy. (2012). EU INCLUSIVE – Data transfer and exchange of good practices regarding the inclusion of Roma population between Romania, Bulgaria, Italy and Spain. Fondazione Casa della Carità “Angelo Abriani”.Google Scholar
  17. Pardo, I. (1996). Managing existence in Naples: Morality, action and structure (Vol. 104). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pardo, I. (2012). Entrepreneurialism in Naples: Formality and informality. Urbanities, 2(1), 30–45.Google Scholar
  19. Pasquetti, S., & Picker, G. (2017). Urban informality and confinement: Toward a relational framework. International Sociology, 32(4), 532–544.Google Scholar
  20. Picker, G. (2012). Territori postcoloniali ai limiti. I campi per rom in Italia e Francia tra doxa e storia. In M. E. Galeotti & E. Ceva (Eds.), Lo spazio del rispetto (pp. 96–121). Milan: Bruno Mondadori.Google Scholar
  21. Picker, G., & Pasquetti, S. (2015). Durable camps: The state, the urban, the everyday. Introduction. City, 19(5), 681–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pierro, B., Ferulano, E., & Baracsi K. 2014. Residence: Nowhere. Roma Rights Journal, 2014(1), 35–41.Google Scholar
  23. Pulay G. (2012). A civilizált, a csavargó, a rafinált és a balek. Utcai élet és informalitás egy bukaresti szegénynegyedben. Beszélő 17(12). http://beszelo.c3.hu/cikkek/a-civilizalt-a-csavargo-a-rafinalt-es-a-balek
  24. Pulay, G. (2015). The street economy in a poor neighbourhood of Bucharest. Gypsy Economy: Romani Livelihoods and Notions of Worth in the 21st Century, 3, 127.Google Scholar
  25. Punziano, G. et al. (2016). Società, Economia E Spazio a Napoli. Esplorazioni E Riflessioni (Society, Economy and Space in Naples. Explorations and Reflections).Google Scholar
  26. Rastello, L. (2014). I buoni. Milano: Chiarelettere.Google Scholar
  27. Robinson, J. (2006). Ordinary Cities: Between Modernity and Development. London: Routledge. Google Scholar
  28. Samers, M. (2005). The myopia of “diverse economies”, or a critique of the “informal economy”. Antipode, 37(5), 875–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schmoll, C., & Semi, G. (2014). Shadow circuits: Urban spaces and mobilities across the Mediterranean. In M. L. Berg, N. Sigona, & B. Gidley (Eds.), Ethnography, diversity and urban space. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Sigona, N. (2011). The governance of Romani people in Italy: Discourse, policy and practice. Journal of Modern Italian Studies, 16(5), 590–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sigona, N. (2015). Campzenship: Reimagining the camp as a social and political space. Citizenship Studies, 19(1), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sigona, N. (2016). Everyday statelessness in Italy: Status, rights, and camps. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 39(2), 263–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sigona, N., & Monasta, L. (eds.). (2006). Cittadinanze Imperfette. Rapporto sulla discriminazione razziale di rom e sinti in Italia. Santa Maria Capua Vetere: Edizioni Spartaco.Google Scholar
  34. Solimene, M. (2015). Xoraxané Romá collecting scrap metal in Rome. Gypsy Economy: Romani Livelihoods and Notions of Worth in the 21st Century, 3, 107.Google Scholar
  35. Vincze, E. (2016). The racialization of Roma in the ‘new’ Europe and the political potential of Romani women. Analize. Journal of Gender and Feminist Studies, (7/2016), 160–166. (European Journal of Women’s Studies, 21(4), 435–442.)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kitti Baracsi
    • 1
  1. 1.Education and Society Doctoral School of EducationUniversity of PécsPécsHungary

Personalised recommendations