Europeanization of Spatial Planning through

Impressum disP 186 · 3/2011 · 47. Jahrgang/Volume 47

Redaktionsadresse, Abonnentenservice

Redaktion

und Einzelverkauf /

Kay W. Axhausen, ETH Zürich (Herausgeber)

Editorial office, subscription service

Adrienne Grêt-Regamey, ETH Zürich

and sale of single issue

Bernd Scholl, ETH Zürich

Redaktion disP NSL – Netzwerk Stadt und Landschaft ETH Zürich CH-8093 Zürich Editorial Office, disP

Schriftleitung Martina Koll-Schretzenmayr, ETH Zürich Korrespondenten Alessandro Balducci, Milano Simin Davoudi, Newcastle

NSL – Network City and

Klaus R. Kunzmann, Potsdam

Landscape

Alain Motte, Aix-en-Provence

ETH Zurich

Willem Salet, Amsterdam

CH-8093 Zurich Tel. +41 (0)44 633 29 69 Fax. +41 (0)44 633 12 15 E-Mail [email protected]

Herausgeberbeirat Marc Angélil, Zürich Kay W. Axhausen, Zürich

Preise Jahresabonnement /

Sabine Baumgart, Dortmund Timothy Beatley, Charlottesville

Inland / Switzerland CHF 90.–

Arthur Benz, Hagen

für Studierende /for students Inland / Switzerland CHF 40.– Ausland / Abroad CHF 50.– / EUR 35.– (inkl. MwSt. und Versandspesen) (including VAT and mailing)

Ian Bishop, Melbourne Laurent Bridel, Lausanne John Danahy, Toronto Rainer Danielzyk, Oldenburg Giuseppe Dematteis, Torino Andreas Faludi, Delft John Friedmann, Vancouver

Price for a single issue

Sir Peter Hall, London

CHF 30.– /EUR 21.–

Michael Hebbert, Manchester

(inkl. MwSt. und Versandspesen)

Mark Jarzombek, Cambridge

(including VAT and mailing)

Roger Keil, Toronto

vierteljährlich. disP – The Planning Review is published quarterly.

Hermann Knoflacher, Wien Michael Koch, Zürich/Hamburg Daniel Kübler, Zürich Giovanni Laino, Napoli Ali Madanipour, Newcastle upon Tyne

ISSN 0251-3625

Ulf Matthiesen, Berlin Luigi Mazza, Milano

Editorial Assistant Barbara Hiltbrunner Bissig

Vincent Nadin, Bristol Kai Nagel, Berlin Mee Kam Ng, Hong Kong Angelo Rossi, Dänikon

Gestaltung/Graphic Design

Pierre-Alain Rumley, Bern

Oliver Schmid

Klaus Selle, Aachen

Konzept: integral ruedi baur, Zürich

Walter Siebel, Oldenburg

Herstellung/Printer Merkur Druck AG, Langenthal

disP – The Planning Review is an interdisciplinary scientific journal that addresses themes relevant to spatial planning, urban planning and design, landscape and environment planning, landscape architecture, regional and environmental economics and traffic planning. The journal is oriented towards professionals in research and practice who are interested in planning issues.

Martin Lendi, Zürich

www.disp.ethz.ch

Redaktion und Produktion /

Mit Annahme eines Manuskripts und dessen Veröffentlichung geht das alleinige Recht der Vervielfältigung in gedruckter sowie in elektronischer Form, des Nachdrucks oder der Übersetzung über an die ETH Zürich, vertreten durch das Netzwerk Stadt und Landschaft, Redaktion disP. Gezeichnete Beiträge stellen die Ansicht der Verfasserin oder des Verfassers dar und nicht unbedingt die des Herausgebers. Nachdruck, auch mit Quellenangabe, ist nur mit ausdrücklicher Bewilligung der disP-Redaktion gestattet.

Lothar Finke, Dortmund

Einzelverkaufspreis/

disP – The Planning Review erscheint

Es werden nur Originalbeiträge veröffentlicht, die keiner anderen Zeitschrift zur Veröffentlichung angeboten worden sind. Die Beiträge werden vor der Veröffentlichung grundsätzlich durch anonyme Referees beurteilt. Ein vollständiger Leitfaden für Autorinnen und Autoren kann auf www.disp.ethz.ch heruntergeladen werden.

Gerd Albers, Germering

Subscription price for one year Ausland / Abroad CHF 100.– / EUR 69.–

disP – The Planning Review ist eine interdisziplinäre wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift, welche sich Themen aus den Bereichen Raumordnung, Stadtplanung/ Städtebau, Landschafts- und Umweltplanung, Landschaftsarchitektur, Regional- und Umweltökonomie sowie der Verkehrsplanung widmet. Sie richtet sich an ein Fachpublikum in Wissenschaft und Praxis, welches sich für Planungsfragen interessiert.

Erika Spiegel, Heidelberg Herta Tödtling-Schönhofer, Wien Sigurd Trommer, Bonn Marco Venturi, Venedig Ursula von Petz, Dortmund Zhang Bing, Beijing

The editors welcome the submission of articles for consideration. disP publishes only original contributions, usually theoretical or empirical, that have not appeared in nor been submitted to other journals. Before publication, all articles are evaluated in an anonymous peer review process (double blind referee process). Complete information on submitting articles to disP can be found at www.disp.ethz.ch under “Publishing in disP”. When the article is accepted for publication, all copyrights are transferred to ETH Zurich, represented by Network City and Landscape, Editorial Office disP. The copyright includes the exclusive right to reproduce and distribute the article, including reprints, translations and all electronic forms (offline, online). Signed articles represent the author’s opinion, and do not necessarily represent the opinion or policies of NSL and/or the editors. Reprints, even if the source is listed, are only allowed with the written permission from the Copyright owner.

Titelbild/Cover «Nationale Seiten von Münzen der Eurozone» /“National sides of coins of the Eurozone”

disP – The Planning Review is included in Thomson Reuters’ ISI Social Science Citation Index.

Inhalt – Contents

disP 186 · 3/2011

Editorial

3

Blick in den Rückspiegel A Glance in the Rearview Mirror Martina Koll-Schretzenmayr

disP Kolumne

5

Ubi bene, ibi patria – Ist Heimat planbar? Hans-Georg Bächtold

City-Tour

6

Mexico City Mathias Clasen

Gast-Editorial – Guest Editorial

12

Differential Europe Dominic Stead

13

Differential Europe: Domestic Actors and Their Role in Shaping Spatial Planning Systems Dominic Stead, Giancarlo Cotella

22

Influences from and Influences on Europe: the Evolution of Spatial Planning and Territorial Governance in Finland Matti Fritsch, Heikki Eskelinen

32

Europeanization, Actor Constellations and Spatial Policy Change in Greece Georgia Giannakourou

42

Europeanization of Spatial Planning through Discourse and Practice in Italy Giancarlo Cotella, Umberto Janin Rivolin

54

The Development of Territorial Cohesion Policies in Latvia Laila Ku-le, Dominic Stead

64

Territorial Governance in Portugal: Institutional Change or Institutional Resilience? Carlos Oliveira, Isabel Breda-Vázquez

77

Spatial Planning and the Influence of Domestic Actors: Some Conclusions Giancarlo Cotella, Dominic Stead

Forum

84

Diskussion zwischen dem Autor und dem Rezensenten aufgrund einer Rezension von Walter Siebel über das von Vittorio Magnago Lampugnani publizierte Werk «Die Stadt im 20. Jahrhundert – Visionen, Entwürfe, Gebautes»

disP Service

96

Wohnen auf dem Wasser Living on the Water

AESOP News Section

98

AESOP Annual Congress: World Planning Schools Congress 2011, Perth, Western Australia

Mitteilungen – Upcoming Events

100

Buchbesprechungen – Book Reviews

102

42

disP 186 · 3/2011

Europeanization of Spatial Planning through Discourse and Practice in Italy Giancarlo Cotella, Umberto Janin Rivolin

Giancarlo Cotella is a postdoctoral researcher, as from November 2011, in the Department of International Planning Systems at University of Kaiserslautern. He was previously employed at DITER, the Inter-university Department of Territorial Studies and Planning, part of Politecnico di Torino. Umberto Janin Rivolin is professor of spatial planning at DITER, the Inter-university Department of Territorial Studies and Planning, part of Politecnico di Torino.

Abstract: Characterized by a prescriptive but often ineffective “urbanism” tradition, spatial planning practice in Italy has changed over the last two decades under the influence of the EU territorial governance agenda. Whereas some experiences have shown that more “performative” spatial development policies are possible, most planning practices continue to be largely based on a “conformative” idea of spatial planning. Surveying the role of actors and epistemic communities in the framework of recent spatial planning changes in Italy, this paper argues that an almost spontaneous and heterogeneous impact of the EU territorial governance agenda on domestic practices occurred initially but could not take root because of the resilience of professional culture. The Europeanization of spatial planning in Italy has progressively lost momentum and there is little evidence to date of any wholesale reform of the Italian spatial planning system.

Introduction According to the EU Compendium of Spatial Planning Systems and Policies, the Italian spatial planning system is most closely associated to the “urbanism” tradition, an ideal-type portraying the spatial planning approach of South European countries that is characterized by “a strong architectural flavor and concern with urban design, townscape and building control”, and by regulations “undertaken through rigid zoning and codes” (CEC 1997: 37). Despite this prescriptive model of spatial planning, Italy has experienced major problems of controlling spatial development for a long time (CEC 2000; Vettoretto 2009). This parallels a widespread lack of spatial strategies that started to be seriously questioned in the last two decades. The emergence of European spatial planning and the progressive establishment of a European Union (EU) territorial governance agenda in the same years (Dühr et al. 2010; Faludi 2010) is not a coincidence, and the influence of European integration on more recent innovations concerning spatial planning in Italy has been analyzed according to differ-

ent standpoints and perspectives (Gualini 2001; Palermo 2001; Janin Rivolin 2002, 2003, 2004; Janin Rivolin, Faludi 2005a). More than by “transposition” of legal obligations (Dühr et al. 2010: 149–157), for which the EU does not retain any power in the field of spatial planning (Husson 2002; Faludi, Waterhout 2002), a progressive “Europeanization” of Italian domestic planning has occurred through other means. In brief, European spatial planning seems to have challenged the Italian “urbanism” tradition by “the rise of planning practices as formulating local development strategies” (Janin Rivolin 2003: 66). Ultimately, most planning practice still shows a remarkable attachment to more traditional administrative and professional cultures, apparently less open to different forms of “discursive integration” (Böhme 2002; Waterhout 2008) and related to a more prescriptive idea of spatial planning (Vettoretto 2009). This article scrutinizes the role of domestic actors and epistemic communities in promoting (or inhibiting) spatial planning policy shifts in Italy in the last decades. It is divided into seven main parts. Following the introduction, the second section describes the basic cultural and institutional features of the Italian tradition of spatial planning, as well as its main developments in the long run. The third section illustrates how the progressive emergence of the EU territorial governance agenda since the late 1980s has influenced the evolutionary pattern of spatial planning in Italy and stimulated a number of innovative approaches. Building on previous work of the paper’s authors (Cotella, Janin Rivolin 2010), the fourth section introduces a conceptualization of EU territorial governance as an evolutionary process, identifying “discourse” and “practices” as two distinct and prominent dimensions of the continuous interplay between the EU and Member States. The role of discourse and practices in the context of recent spatial planning policy shifts in Italy are then analyzed respectively in the fifth and sixth sections, where specific attention is dedicated to the role and activity of domestic actors and epistemic communities. The last section rounds off the contribution by summing up the main findings in the light of possible future developments of EU cohesion policy.

Traditional spatial planning in Italy and its effects Embedded within an administrative and legal structure belonging to the “Napoleonic family” (Newman, Thornley 1996), characterized by strongly hierarchical power relationships between the State and municipalities 1, a “modern” planning culture emerged in Italy between the nineteenth and twentieth century. In a way this appeared to be the outcome of a cultural “dispute” between various professional figures in which architects prevailed under the fascist regime (Zucconi 1989). The seminal handbook Vecchie città ed edilizia nuova (“Old towns and new building”) by Gustavo Giovannoni (1931), published under the auspices of the then nascent Istituto Nazionale di Urbanistica (INU, National Institute of Urban Planning), supported the so-called “integral architect” as the only profession capable of conciliating “the reasons of the art and history” with the needs of modern urbanization. This history may help explain the origins of the Italian “urbanism” tradition, as described in the EU Compendium of Spatial Planning Systems and Policies, and the cultural inspiration of the first national “urbanism” law of 1942 (Law no.1150; Legge urbanistica nazionale), which is still in force despite various successive amendments (CEC 2000). This law established, first and foremost, that the planning system should center on the municipal plan for zoning existing land uses and future developments (so-called Piano regolatore generale, or “General regulative plan”). Various problems of development control arose during the post-war reconstruction period, in which building activity recorded an unprecedented boom in Italy, but without achieving the political aim of improving housing conditions for the weakest social classes. Within a highly agonistic social and political context (Ginsborg 2003), “reformist planning practices (and their culture) […] constituted the hegemonic discourse on planning” after the 1950s, with an increasing influence of economics and social sciences (Vettoretto 2009: 193). This led to a partial reform of the planning system in 1967 (Law no. 765 – the so-called Legge ponte or “bridge law”), alluding to its then supposed provisional character). Coherent with the consolidated prescriptive approach, this introduced more precise zoning typologies, quantitative indicators and minimum standards for public services and infrastructures provision. A decade later, problems of public budget shortages and

local plan implementation led to a new law in 1977 (Law no. 10), which established that development permissions should be onerous and that local plans should be provided with a “multi-annual implementation program” (Piano pluriennale di attuazione). Around the same time, a further change to the Italian planning system’s structure culminated in the extension of certain legislative powers (including urban planning) to the regions, as a late consequence of the application of the Italian Constitution that was approved in 1948. On the one hand, this gave rise to a more extensive development of regional (NUTS 2) and provincial (NUTS 3) plans and greater prescription for certain sectoral policies (e.g. infrastructure networks, environment and landscape preservation) in addition to local rules established by zoning plans. On the other hand, this progressive regionalization (Putnam 1993) has accentuated the differentiation of regional planning systems under a common national framework. Since then, according to Vettoretto (2009), most planning practices and their working cultures “vary significantly, in a way, among regions (the institutional setting of spatial planning) and among communities of practice” (p.190). Apart from a few exceptions, however, the widespread prescriptive approach has led to typical planning practices becoming even more bureaucratic, as “a formal obligation, where social interactions have been reduced to formal ones defined by laws and regulations and/or […] affected by patronage negotiations” (Vettoretto 2009: 196).2 As a consequence, in a country where spatial planning is “practically non-existent at the national level, merely a guideline at the regional level, and implemented at the local level” (CEC 2000: 97), land-use planning has often become a powerful instrument for political and electoral consensus building, contributing to the realization of massive low-density urban regions and sprawl in the long run (Clementi et al. 1996). This culminated in an epochal political crisis in the early 1990s (labelled by the national press as Tangentopoli or “Corruption city”), which contributed to the collapse of the country’s political system.

Recent changes and the influence of the European Union The effectiveness of planning practices and the appropriateness of professional ideologies started to be seriously questioned by a new generation of planners and scholars since the 1980s

disP 186 · 3/2011

43

44

disP 186 · 3/2011

(Vettoretto 2009). Public authorities were meanwhile seriously concerned by new challenges that traditional planning instruments were unable to manage, such as inter-municipal coordination, environmental and landscape concerns3, the integration of sectoral policies, the involvement of private stakeholders and resources in spatial planning implementation, and vertical and horizontal coordination in territorial governance processes. The involvement of Italy in early EU cohesion policy initiatives, such as the pioneer Integrated Mediterranean Programs 4 and Urban Pilot Projects, as well as the early Structural Funds Programs, have encouraged new approaches to spatial planning in different ways (Gualini 2001; Janin Rivolin 2002, 2003; Janin Rivolin, Faludi 2005a). In general, “a progressive alignment between domestic and European regional policy” towards intervention that “also largely involves territorial criteria” (CEC 2000: 98–99) is commonly acknowledged. This occurred at different levels of institutional competence (for a more detailed overview, see Janin Rivolin 2003). At the national level, the establishment of the “Department for development and cohesion policies” (DPS – Dipartimento per le politiche di sviluppo e coesione) in 1996 within the Ministry of economic development and the reorganization of the “Directorate General of territorial coordination” (DICOTER – Direzione generale del coordinamento territoriale) at the Ministry of public works (later transformed into the Ministry of Infrastructure) brought a process of administrative and social capitalization of Community guidelines. At the regional level, the gradual involvement of public authorities in the EU structural programming, particularly participation in INTERREG territorial cooperation programs has increased the institutional capacities and strategic visioning skills, in turn influencing regional planning towards more strategic approaches. Finally, at local level, cities have often functioned as the primary catalysts of new governance paradigms inspired by the EU (Palermo 2001). On the other hand, the Italian and Mediterranean planning tradition, focused on the promotion of local diversities and on the refusal of centralistic control, may have meanwhile contributed to revealing the inappropriateness (if not the impossibility) of a top-down model of EU territorial governance. This is indicated, for instance, by the subtitle of recent European Commission’s Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion (CEC 2008): “Turning territorial diversity into strength”. Moreover, the Commission has initi-

ated the elaboration of guidelines for the next cohesion policy cycle (2014–2020) according to a more “place-based” and contractual approach, in line with the EU-commissioned Barca Report (Barca 2009; CEC 2010).5 Spatial planning in Italy has undergone institutional renovation that is perhaps unprecedented in its post-war history. One clear example is the substitution of the term urbanistica (“urbanism”) with the wording governo del territorio (“government of the territory”) in the Italian Constitution (article 117) in 2001. The constitutional amendment served to clarify, inter alia, that “the government of the territory” concerns “the policies by which the public authorities govern – according to the distribution of powers laid down by the Constitution – the multiple uses of territory, combining the different interests, without giving some of them a prominent relief unlike in the case of certain sectoral policies” (Chiti 2003: 93, authors’ translation). In other words, as much as the term “urbanism” was exposed to the feelings of a “weak” or at least uncertain planning culture (Zucconi 1989; Mazza 2002), the new institutional expression emphasizes the centrality of the use of space with respect to public development strategies and, as an implicit consequence, the need for effective government tools to deal with this issue. Spatial planning legislation reforms occurring since the late 1990s in various Italian regions (where the claim for a national reform of the planning system is a recurring leitmotiv) have introduced significant innovation in respective spatial planning tools, such as the distinction between “structural-indicative” and “operative-regulative” plans, the establishment of collaborative planning processes, and procedures for the transfer of development rights (so-called “perequazione” or “equalization”). The recent “fashion” of strategic spatial plans, experienced by various cities and local communities spontaneously (i.e. despite the absence of specific legislation) in the last decade (Figure 1) is perhaps the clearest sign of a widespread attempt to capitalize on the experimental “innovation” process (Palermo 2006). Ultimately, in a scenario characterized by the progressive consolidation of spatial development programming alongside more traditional forms of land use planning, “a sort of hybridization of mere old regulative styles and new perspectives” characterizes spatial planning in Italy at present. As a result, “a traditional culture of planning, as essentially a command and control activity, is still vital and influential” (Vettoretto 2009: 201–202).

Strategic cities

disP 186 · 3/2011

45

Cities that started or completed the preparation of a Strategic Plan Cities that are starting the preparation of a Strategic Plan (under MITT Call) Cities interested in the preparation of Strategic Plans (under regional calls or other sources of funding)

Fig. 1: Types of strategic spatial plans of the Italian cities. (based on: MI 2007)

Discourse and practices as prominent “ dimensions” of EU territorial governance In order to understand the operation and evolution of territorial governance processes in the EU, the authors make use of a recent conceptual model (Figure 2), showing how various “dimensions” (namely structure, tools, discourse and practices) characterize the interplay of the EU and the Member States in the overall framework of spatial planning activities (Cotella, Janin Rivolin 2010). A detailed explanation of the model can be found elsewhere (Cotella, Janin Rivolin 2010). Here, it is sufficient to say that it is based on the intrinsically evolutionary nature of territorial governance as an “institutional” process, occurring therefore as “the unintentional result of the interplay among intentional decisions and actions” (Moroni 2010: 283) undertaken by multiple collective and individual actors (Scharpf 1997). The evolutionary operation of territorial governance in any institutional context is thus described as occurring through cyclical processes of social experience, political acknowledgement and institutional codification, in which the above recalled “dimensions” of decisions and actions (featured by distinct characters and roles in the overall game) are variously active. Moreover, the “evolutionary mainstream” of territorial governance (based on cyclic phases of policy formulation, policy implementation, policy evaluation and legal achievement) is inter-

twined with further “contextual relations”, the influence of which cannot be disregarded. The dimension labelled structure constitutes the overall set of constitutional and legal provisions allowing and ruling the operation of territorial governance in a specific context. The tools dimension concerns the production of all types of spatial plans and programs, as well as any possible means for territorial governance, such as control devices, monitoring and evaluation procedures and forms of economic incentive. The label discourse refers to the complex activity of various “territorial knowledge communities”, which include “communities of practice” (Lave, Wenger 1991), “epistemic communities” (Haas 1992),“advocacy coalitions” (Sabatiers, JenkinsSmith 1993), “policy networks” (Rhodes 1997) active within different “knowledge arenas” and their role in favouring certain ideas, concepts and arguments over others in the field of spatial planning and territorial governance (see Adams et al. 2011). Finally, generated from the social experience of spatial planning implementation between various public and private subjects through unpredictable sets of joint rationalities (March, Olsen 1979; Schön 1983), practices constitute the source of such an evolutionary process. Aiming to understand the complexity of territorial governance in the European context, the model simultaneously represents the relations occurring in each Member State (labelled MS in Figure 2) as well as at the EU level. Furthermore,

46

disP 186 · 3/2011

S

institutional codification

EU domain

policy formulation

legal achievement

political acknowledgement

D

T s policy evaluation

legal achiev.

d

Fig. 2: EU territorial governance as an evolutionary process. (Source: authors)

t policy eval.

social experience

policy implementation

policy form.

MS domain

policy impl.

p p: practice

S: EU Structure

s: MS structure

T: EU Tools

t: MS tools

evolutionary mainstream

D: EU Discourse

d: MS discourse

contextual relations

it takes into account the complex set of reciprocal relations between the two levels and describes how progressive “Europeanization” can take shape through the double impact of the EU on domestic contexts and vice versa (see for example Olsen 2002; Radaelli 2004; Lenschow 2006; Dühr et al. 2007). While potentially constituting the most coercive driver of change, the influence of EU structure (S) on Member States structures (s) is largely limited by the lack of specific EU spatial planning competence. On the other hand, a mutual influence may potentially occur between discourse at the EU level (D) and national discourses (d), as it has been well explained by the concept of “discursive integration” (Böhme 2002; Waterhout 2008). A circular cognitive process allows certain concepts and ideas, emerging and consolidating at the EU level through debate among actors from across Europe, to exert an impact on domestic territorial governance realities (Böhme et al. 2004; Dabinett, Richardson 2005).6 Moreover, domestic change in territorial governance is conveyed by the direct impact of the EU tools (T) on local practices (p), triggered by mechanisms of economic conditionality and social learning in which the EU define the adoption of specific logics as a necessary condition to obtain certain benefits, in turn promoting a change of domestic practices which can influence the technical and political discourse (d). Using the above analytical model, the following two sections explore territorial governance

discourse (d) and practices (p) in Italy, as well as their respective upward and downward relationships. We consider the role of domestic actors and epistemic communities in both promoting and hampering the recent spatial planning policy shifts in Italy, as they have been previously described.

The low permeability of planning discourse in Italy Focusing on domestic discourse (d) leads to the consideration of the role that domestic spatial planning epistemic communities play at the crossroads of mutual relationships with the EU discourse (D), domestic structure (s), tools (t) and practices (p). This links with Böhme’s view that discursive integration is prevalent “when there are strong policy communities active at European and national levels and direct links between them” (Böhme 2002, p.III). In this section, we firstly assess the strength of the Italian community of planners and the quality of linkages with Europe and secondly consider the level of influence of these actors on recent changes (legal, operational or practical) in spatial planning in Italy, as described in the previous sections. The long process of elaborating and approving the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP, CEC 1999) is, in this context, an excellent “litmus test” to measure the degree

of “discursive integration” concerning each EU Member State in the nascent phase of European spatial planning. Faludi and Waterhout (2002) have noted that, as spatial planning is “not a priority” in Italy, the “attitude of the Italian […] delegation would continue to be fluid” along the entire process (pp.38–41). Because of the scarce social and political acknowledgement of spatial planning in Italy, the ESDP could be kept at arm’s length from national planning structures and, more widely, from the community of planners until its final approval in 1999 (Janin Rivolin 2003). As regards the scarce social and political acknowledgement of spatial planning in Italy, it should be recalled that the first Italian school of planning (detached from educational curricula in architecture) was only established in 1973 (in Venice). This only occurred due to the commitment and acknowledged authority of Giovanni Astengo, a leading figure of spatial planning reform in Italy (Mazza 1991). However, this had no immediate implications for an institutional recognition of spatial planning as an autonomous professional profile. On the contrary, an autonomous professional institute of planners (like the Royal Town Planning Institute in the UK, for instance, which is clearly separated from the Royal Institute of British Architects) has never been established in Italy. In 1998 an official decree was issued by the Minister of public works, declaring that graduates of planning were also qualified to elaborate plans, in addition to architects and civil engineers! More recently, national reform of educational curricula inspired by the so-called Bologna process (for a detailed overview regarding spatial planning, see for example Geppert, Verhage 2008) has included spatial planning both at the bachelor and master levels since 2000, leading to an immediate proliferation of related teaching programs in various Italian Universities.7 After strong opposition of the corporation of architects against the institution of an autonomous professional chamber of planners, planning was formally recognized (alongside landscape and heritage preservation), as a subsection within their professional organization, which renamed itself as the “Chamber of architects, planners, landscapers and heritage preservers” (Ordine degli architetti, pianificatori, paesaggisti e conservatori).8 Apart from the formal recognition of educational and professional profiles, planning culture in Italy has been shaped for a long time by INU (Istituto Nazionale di Urbanistica – National Institute of Urban Planning)9, founded

in 1931 and open to professionals, academics and public administrations. The foundation of the first academic school of planning in Italy in 1973 subsequently gave rise to ASSURB (Associazione nazionale degli urbanisti e dei pianificatori territoriali e ambientali – National Association of urban, regional and environmental planners)10, which was constituted in 1977 with the aim of representing, promoting and protecting the profession of planner.11 In the mid1990s, the SIU (Società Italiana degli Urbanisti – Italian Society of Urban Planners)12 was founded by a number of academics concerned with the quality of educational and professional planning curricula. Finally, URBING (Urbanisti Ingegneri – Urban Planning Engineers) is an association of academics concerned with the teaching of spatial planning within schools of engineering. The resurgence of these associations may at a first glance be interpreted as evidence of an active ongoing debate over the nature and evolution of spatial planning. However, busy as it is in defining, consolidating and defending its role within the domestic political and social context, the Italian planning culture has traditionally developed in relative international isolation, due in part to language barriers.13 Even participation in the Association of European Schools of Planning (AESOP)14 is limited to an elite of Italian academics from a dozen university departments in Italy. Be that as it may, after acknowledging the ESDP existence and devoting some instrumental attention to more specific EU spatial policies in the past decade (in particular, to the local implementation of urban projects), Italian planning scholars seem to have relegated European spatial planning and EU territorial governance to eccentric topics, without any real appreciation of potential for institutional innovation (Janin Rivolin 2004). Needless to say, most professional debates have never been heavily influenced by the EU planning discourse, with the possible exception of certain broader issues such as sustainable development and strategic planning. In conclusion, the weak overall influence between the EU discourse and national discourse in Italy is due to a combination of factors, including a low level of recognition of spatial planning on the social and political agenda, the relative international isolation of the prominent national planning culture and, as partial consequence of both, the late involvement of Italian planners in the nascent discussion on European spatial planning since the early 1990s. It would therefore be hard to support the claim that the

disP 186 · 3/2011

47

48

disP 186 · 3/2011

recent influence of the EU on spatial planning in Italy arose through genuine “discursive integration” between epistemic communities. On the contrary, one may be led rather to suspect that the domestic elites of academics and professionals, while defending the planning profession within the national domain, have contributed to path-dependency 15 by reacting against radical and uncertain changes.

Practices as the prominent catalyst of change Focusing on practices (p) in accordance with the above model leads us to consider the role of local actors and actions concerned with spatial planning, played at the crossroads of relationships with the EU tools (T) and discourse (D) and with domestic structure (s), tools (t) and discourse (d). In other words, the assumption is that, in any spatial planning and development activity, various individual cultures are continuously pressed by various intra- and extra-contextual factors (Gullestrup 2006) and these interact in an indefinable number of very specific “institutional milieus” (DiGaetano, Strom 2003). While local practices are also of course influenced by path-dependency, their generative potential is linked to the unpredictable sets of joint rationalities, which are produced for and within the operation of interactive intentional actions (March, Olsen 1979; Schön 1983; Oakeshott 1991). In our case, attention is focused on how the introduction of new goals and means established at the EU level (e.g. cohesion policy, Structural Funds Community Initiatives) have interacted through multiple specific experiences with the existing set of legal, operational and cultural conditions. On the other hand, it is recognized that the interactive knowledge produced through domestic experiences can also influence the EU level discourse (Olsen 2002). Despite the lukewarm reaction to European spatial planning among domestic epistemic communities in Italy (see above), a dossier prepared and presented by the SIU in a public debate in 1997 surprisingly concluded that the EU spatial planning initiatives were a major factor stimulating the ongoing changes of domestic spatial planning practices. Under the unequivocal title “How urban planners’ jobs are changing in Italy”, the SIU dossier reported the results of a survey based on 23 interviews with professionals, officials and experts in planning and presented a dozen analytic summaries about new policy tools involving the planners’ com-

petences (Balducci 1998). Surprisingly, topics such as the Structural Funds and Life-Environment programs, INTERREG and URBAN Community initiatives were frequently mentioned in the dossier. In addition, various new national policy tools were mentioned that have been influenced, either directly or indirectly, by the EU territorial governance agenda. For example, the introduction of urban “integrated intervention program” (Programma integrato d’intervento) in 1992 (Law no.179) was based on the model of Urban Pilot Projects and the URBAN Community Initiative16 and has since led to various ministerial programs. A series of Ministerial Decrees have launched specific calls for proposals aiming to assign national co-financing funds to local authorities to implement so-called programmi urbani complessi (complex urban programmes).17 In the context of EU territorial governance agenda, new opportunities for multi-actor and cross-sector activities have emerged as a result of new tools of inter-institutional partnership, such as the “program agreement” (Accordo di programma; Law no. 142/1990), and the “conference of services” (Conferenza dei servizi; Law no. 241/1990). An advanced contractual model for public/private partnerships was introduced by the “framework program agreement” (Accordo di programma quadro; Law no.662/1996) in 1996 (Salone 1999; Ancona 2001; Gualini 2001). In the context of the proliferation of local experiences that have been either directly or indirectly influenced by new tools established at the EU level, it has been argued that there has been “a sort of creeping material innovation […], triggered as if by contamination through planning practices, with incremental institutional change in their wake” (Janin Rivolin 2003: 55). Innovation via practice has arisen from a general acknowledgement that non-binding spatial programs (e.g. Structural Funds’ mainstream programming, INTERREG, URBAN, LEADER initiatives) can be often more effective than prescriptive plans. The rationale of prescriptive plans is to make development projects “conform” to policies by legal constraint, whereas the competitive selection of projects under nonbinding spatial programs is about the “performance” of certain policies according to explicit evaluation criteria. In other words, conformance implies “correspondence in form, manner, or character” or an “action in accordance with some specified standard or authority”, whereas performance concerns “the execution of an action or the fulfilment of a claim, promise, or request” (Janin Rivolin 2008).

As mentioned above, the traditional set of legal, operational and cultural devices characterizing the spatial planning system in Italy is premised on the “conformative” nature of modern planning, meaning that its basic rationale is that “spatial development projects must conform themselves to the collective strategy affirmed by the plan, usually through a land-use zoning design” (Janin Rivolin 2008: 167). The EU has shaped domestic beliefs and expectations in Italy concerning planning through “the promotion of non-binding spatial policy programmes and the progressive promotion of projects that prove themselves capable to ‘perform’ the agreed collective strategy” (ibid.: 168). This situation has also started to influence the logics of domestic actors and has stimulated variations in the established customs and routines at various levels (for a general discussion of these issues, see for example Knill, Lehmkuhl 1999). More than through a softer “discursive integration”, domestic change concerning spatial planning seemed to occur through a mixture of economic conditionality mechanisms (cofinancing rules) and an interactive “socialization and collective learning process resulting in norm internalization and the development of new identities” (Borzel, Risse 2000: 2). This was possible because of the particularly accentuated mismatch between the widespread “conformative” tradition of spatial planning in Italy (and other Mediterranean countries) and the “performative” approach fostered by EU intervention (Giannakourou 2005). Interestingly, this highlights the crucial role played by local actors in the process of Europeanization, partially in contrast with mainstream “intergovernmentalist” views which emphasize the role of national states as “gatekeepers” of EU policies (Hoffmann 1966, 1982; Moravcsik 1998). The same is true, after all, as far as bottom-up processes of Europeanization are concerned, with the “uploading” influence of Italy (and other Mediterranean countries) on EU cohesion policy . In other words, European spatial planning can also take shape by passing through the prism of progressive and complex changes in planning practices. Even if Community-led, this is an eminently local and diversified process and therefore less visible at the continental scale (Janin Rivolin, Faludi 2005b). It is worth highlighting that the low permeability of planning discourse in Italy has not been without consequences for practice and might even have a countervailing effect in the long term. Innovative practice exists side by side with more typical practice due to “the persistence of

traditional administrative and professional cultures” and path-dependency (Vettoretto 2009: 201). Ultimately, “ambiguity and uncertainty characterize the making of spatial planning; still unclear is the image of connections among structural, strategic and regulative issues in various planning instruments” (op cit: 201).

Conclusions We have shown how spatial planning in Italy has incrementally benefited from the influence of EU territorial governance in the last twenty years. In particular, more prescriptive and critical attitudes to spatial planning have been challenged by innovative spatial development strategies and projects which have originated in a widespread learning-by-doing process based on variegated spatial planning experiences. Many practitioners involved in spatial planning have little awareness of the whole range of changes taking place. One consequence is a fracture between traditional urban planning practices and more innovative “programming” inspired in the framework of EU territorial governance (for a useful clarification of the difference between spatial planning and programming, see DeVries 2002). The consolidation of a “programming culture” parallel to (rather than integrated with) traditional spatial planning may help to explain the lack of impact of the EU territorial governance agenda on the Italian spatial planning system. On the one hand, Italian planners still are relatively impermeable to EU territorial governance discourse which they often perceive as not directly linked to their sphere of action. On the other, the innovative experiences that have incrementally influenced practice in the last two decades, have not achieved a critical mass to lead to an overall reform of the spatial planning system, and still represent a series of exceptions that run in parallel to traditional urban planning practices. The consequence is an uncertain phase for spatial planning in Italy at present, which could constitute a point of weakness in the future context of EU cohesion policy. Indeed, the contribution of Italy to current EU cohesion policy has shown, above all, the inability even to draft a national strategy that went beyond the mere requirements of public spending. However, the “new cohesion policy” set the right conditions for this, asking Member States for the first time to elaborate respective National Strategic Reference Frameworks (NSRF) based on the European Council’s “Commu-

disP 186 · 3/2011

49

50

disP 186 · 3/2011

nity strategic guidelines on cohesion” (decision 2006/702/EC). Even in the face of the explicit Council’s invitation to consider the “territorial dimension” of cohesion policy and to build national and regional programs looking at “the particular needs and characteristics of specific geographical challenges and opportunities”, the Italian NSRF was too generic to be “strategic”, and lacking in any “territorial dimension”. Therefore, half of the new cohesion policy cycle has been taken up in the shadow of national and regional spending procedures, without any apparent sign of further innovation, not to mention attention to the territorial dimension. In the absence of development strategies, the “government of the territory” – nowadays established in the Italian Constitution as substituting the “urbanism” institutional competence – has lost social and political consistency and, in the best case, is at the mercy of rehashed ideological and cultural heritage. A political vacuum has added to the responsibility of the planning profession although most planners are generally unaware of this responsibility and lack the capability to stand up as an authoritative interlocutor of civil society. The persistent absence of a general reform in spatial planning, which is still heavily based on legislation from 1942, is a source of frustration among administrative and professional practice. The stark contrast between the “conformative” setting of spatial planning in Italy and the “performative” needs solicited from Europe is not generally perceived. Italian ambivalence and division in the process of EU integration is currently exacerbated by the global reach of the recent fiscal and economic crisis. On the one hand, the European Commission is proposing a more markedly “place-based” and contractual approach for the next cohesion policy period (Barca 2009; CEC 2010) but, on the other hand, the debate on anti-crisis measures in the European Council and in various intergovernmental fora has reinvigorated the instance for a substantial “renationalization” of cohesion policy. This would mean a substantial reduction of national contributions to the budget of the EU (currently set at 1% of gross national income of Member States), leaving the respective shares of co-financing to the exclusive responsibility of national Governments. In any case, this is something different than a place-based approach. It is premature to predict the result of current Community discussion on the future of EU cohesion policy or the destiny of EU territorial governance. Among the few certainties in these times is the fact that Italy has a persistent in-

capacity (cultural as well as political) to move towards the “government of the territory” as a shared collective strategy. The corollary of this is an archaic system of planning and design procedures that mystify the centrality of public control of the use of space and inhibit development strategies.

Notes 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Even before the unification of Italy in 1861, the cultural and political influence of so-called “social municipalism” and “municipal socialism” ideologies, then supported respectively by the Christian and the Socialist parties (Gaspari 1998), had made municipalities the core of the modern welfare system through, for instance, the constitution of a system of public local agencies providing services of general interests. “Patronage and familism are often associated with the establishment of urban coalitions including politicians, developers, landowners, professionals, etc. seeking to maximize urban rent through benevolent land-use planning […]. This is often technically legitimated by overestimated population growth and legally supported by discretionary interpretations of laws, frequent and ad hoc changes in land-use regulation and zoning, along with practices of corruption aimed at supporting the costly local political system, and a widespread tolerance toward massive illegal building activity particularly in Southern Italy” (Vettoretto 2009: 196). For instance, the obligation to specific “landscape plans” (piani paesistici) at a regional or sub-regional level and to “water basins plans” (piani di bacino) at an interregional level was established respectively by Laws no. 431/1985 and no. 183/1989. Between 1986 and 1992, France, Greece and Italy benefited from a Community contribution of 6.6 million Ecu, justified as compensation for the accession of Spain and Portugal into the EU. Fabrizio Barca is a former director of the DPS (Dipartimento per le politiche di sviluppo e coesione) mentioned above. Intensity and quality of change vary of course from context to context and may depend on different variables. In particular, “the likelihood of integration between domestic and EU discourse increases the more that policymakers have institutionalized relationships with epistemic communities that promote EU rules and the more that domestic structure are conducive to the influence of new ideas” (Schimmelfenning, Sedelmeier 2005: 23). After a decade of increase, the severe budget cuts to public universities imposed by the current government at the time of writing are undermining most of these teaching programs.

8 According to the present configuration, accredited planners, landscape architects and heritage professionals are legally entitled to perform their respective job functions, while architects are qualified for all of them in addition to their own general design responsibilities. 9 http://www.inu.it/sito. 10 http://www.urbanisti.it. 11 ASSURB is now a member of the European Council of Spatial Planners (ECTP-CEU). 12 http://www.societaurbanisti.it. 13 The webpages of these planning organizations rarely contain any information in English. 14 Two Italians, namely Luigi Mazza and Giorgio Piccinato, were among the AESOP founding fathers in 1987. 15 The concept of path-dependency suggests how “the process by which we arrive at today’s institutions is relevant and constrains future choices” (North 1990: 94) or, in other words, how options for institutional or policy change can be culturally embedded as well as narrowed by choices made in the past (for a recent insight on the role of path-dependency in spatial planning research, see for example Booth 2011). 16 Genoa and Venice figured among the 33 Urban Pilot Projects selected for the period 1989–93 and Brindisi, Milan, Naples and Turin were among the 26 added in 1997–99. Some 16 Italian cities were active under the Urban I Program in 1994–99, and additional eight took part in the Urban II Program in 2000–06. 17 These include Programmi di riqualificazione urbana (Urban regeneration programs, 1994), Programmi di recupero urbano (Urban recovery programs, 1995), Contratti di quartiere (Quarter contracts, 1998), Programmi di riqualificazione urbana e di sviluppo sostenibile del territorio (Programs of urban regeneration and sustainable development of the territory, 1998), Programmi integrati territoriali (Territorial integrated programs, 2000) and Urban Italia (2000).

References Adams, N.; Cotella, G.; Nunes, R. (eds.) (2010): Territorial Development, Cohesion and Spatial Planning. Knowledge and Policy Development in an Enlarged EU. London/New York: Routledge. Ancona, G. (2001): Programmazione negoziata e sviluppo locale. Bari: Cacucci. Balducci, A. (ed.) (1998): Come cambiano i mestieri dell’urbanista in Italia, Territorio 7, pp.7–115. Barca, F. (2009): An Agenda for a Reformed Cohesion Policy. A place-based approach to meeting European Union challenges and expectations, Independent Report prepared at the request of Danuta Hübner, Commissioner for Regional Policy. Böhme; K. (2002): Nordic Echoes of European Spatial Planning. Stockholm: Nordregio.

Böhme, K.; Richardson, T.; Dabinett, G.; Jensen, O.B. (2004): Values in a vacuum? Towards an integrated multi-level analysis of the governance of European space, European Planning Studies 12(8), pp.1175–1188. Booth, P. (2011): Culture, planning and path dependence: some reflections on the problems of comparison, Town Planning Review 82(1), pp.13–28. Borzel, T.; Risse, T. (2000): When Europe Hits Home. Europeanization and Domestic Change, European Integration Online Papers 4(15), http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2000-015.htm CEC (Commission of the European Communities) (1997): The EU Compendium of Spatial Planning Systems and Policies, Regional Development Studies 28. Luxembourg: European Communities. CEC (Commission of the European Communities) (1999): European Spatial Development Perspective: Towards Balanced and Sustainable Development of the Territory of the EU. Luxembourg: Office of the Official Publications of the European Communities. CEC (Commission of the European Communities) (2000): The EU Compendium of Spatial Planning Systems and Policies: Italy, Regional Development Studies, 28I. Luxembourg: European Communities. CEC (Commission of the European Communities) (2008): Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion. Turning territorial diversity into strength, Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee, COM(2008) 616 final, Brussels, 6 October. CEC (Commission of the European Communities) (2010): Investing in Europe’s future. Fifth Report on Economic, Social and Territorial Cohesion. Luxembourg: European Union. Chiti, M.P. (2003): Il ruolo della Comunità europea nel governo del territorio, Rivista Giuridica dell’Edilizia 3, pp.91–107. Clementi, A.; Dematteis, G.; Palermo, P.C. (eds) (1996): Le forme del territorio italiano, 2 volumes. Rome/Bari: Laterza. Cotella, G.; Janin Rivolin, U. (2010): Institutions, discourse and practices: towards a multi-dimensional understanding of EU territorial governance, paper presented at the XXIV AESOP Congress “Space is Luxury”, Helsinki, 7–10 July. Dabinett, G.; Richardson, T. (2005): The Europeanisation of spatial strategy: Shaping regions and spatial justice through governmental ideas, International Planning Studies 10(3–4), pp. 201–218. DiGaetano, A.; Strom, E. (2003): Comparative urban governance: An integrated approach, Urban Affairs Review 38(3), pp.356–395. Dühr, S.; Colomb, C.; Nadin, V. (2010): European Spatial Planning and Territorial Cooperation. London/New York: Routledge.

disP 186 · 3/2011

51

52

disP 186 · 3/2011

Dühr, S.; Stead, D.; Zonneveld, W. (2007): The Europeanization of spatial planning through territorial cooperation, Planning Practice and Research 22(3), pp.291–307. Faludi, A. (2010): Cohesion, Coherence, Cooperation: European Spatial Planning Coming of Age? London/New York: Routledge. Faludi, A.; Waterhout, B. (2002): The making of the European spatial development perspective. No masterplan. London/New York: Routledge. Gaspari, O. (1998): L’Italia dei municipi: il movimento comunale in età liberale (1879–1906). Roma: Donzelli Editore. Geppert, A.; Verhage, R. (eds.) (2008): Towards a European recognition for the Planning profession, Planning Education 1. Leuven: AESOP. Giannakourou, G. (2005): Transforming Spatial Planning Policy in Mediterranean Countries: Europeanization and Domestic Change, European Planning Studies 13(2), pp.319–331. Ginsborg, P. (2003): A History of Contemporary Italy: Society and Politics, 1943–1988. New York/ Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. Giovannoni, G. (1931): Vecchie città ed edilizia nuova. Torino: Utet. Gualini, E. (2001): “New programming” and the influence of transnational discourses in the reform of regional policy in Italy, European Planning Studies 9(6), pp.755–771. Gullestrup, H. (2006): Cultural Analysis, Towards Cross-Cultural Understanding. Aalborg: Aalborg University Press. Haas, P.M. (1992): Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination, International Organization 46(1), pp.1–35. Hoffmann, S. (1966): Obstinate or obsolete? The fate of the nation-state and the faith of Western Europe, Daedalus 95(3), pp.862–915. Hoffmann, S. (1982): Reflections on the nationstate in Western Europe today, Journal of Common Market Studies 21(1), pp.21–38. Husson, C. (2002): L’Europe sans territoire. Essai sur le concept de cohésion territoriale. Paris: Datar/L’Aube. Janin Rivolin, U. (ed.) (2002): L’innovazione comunitaria / Community innovation, special issue, Urbanistica 119, pp.25–55. Janin Rivolin, U. (2003): Shaping European spatial planning. How Italy’s experience can contribute, Town Planning Review 74(1), pp.51–76. Janin Rivolin, U. (2004): European spatial planning. La governance territoriale comunitaria e le innovazioni dell’urbanistica. Milano: Franco Angeli. Janin Rivolin, U. (2008): Conforming and performing planning systems in Europe: an unbearable cohabitation, Planning Practice & Research 23(2), pp.167–186. Janin Rivolin, U.; Faludi, A. (eds.) (2005a): Southern Perspectives on European Spatial Planning, special issue, European Planning Studies 13(2), pp.195–331.

Janin Rivolin, U.; Faludi, A. (2005b): The hidden face of European spatial planning: innovations in governance, European Planning Studies 13(2), pp.195–215. Knill, C.; Lehmkuhl, D. (1999): How Europe Matters – Different Mechanisms of Europeanization, European Integration Online Papers 7(3), http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/1999-007.htm Lave, J.; Wenger, E. (1991): Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lenschow, A. (2006): Europeanization of public policy. In Richardson, J. (ed.): European Union – Power and policy making. Abingdon: Routledge, pp.55–71. March, J.G.; Olsen, J.P. (1979): Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget. Mazza, L. (1991): Giovanni Astengo. Memorial Note, Town Planning Review 62(1), pp.107–108. Mazza, L. (2002): Technical knowledge and planning actions, Planning Theory 1(1), pp.11–26. MI (Ministero delle Infrastrutture) (2007): Reti e territori al futuro. Materiali per una visione. Roma: Sintesi grafica. Moravcsik, A. (1998): The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht. Ithaca (NY): Cornell University Press. Moroni, S. (2010): An evolutionary theory of institutions and a dynamic approach to reform, Planning Theory 9(4), pp.275–297. Newman, P.; Thornley, A. (1996): Urban Planning in Europe. International competition, national systems and planning projects. London/New York: Routledge. North, D.C. (1990): Institutions, Institutional change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Oakeshott, M. (1991): Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays. Indianapolis: Liberty Press. Olsen, J.P. (2002): The many faces of Europeanization, Journal of Common Market Studies 40(5), pp.921–952. Palermo, P.C. (ed.) (2001): Il programma Urban e l’innovazione delle politiche urbane. 3 volumes, Milano: Franco Angeli/Diap. Palermo, P.C. (2006): Innovation in planning. Italian experiences. Barcelona: APRO. Putnam, R.D. (1993): Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Radaelli, C.M. (2004): Europeanization: solution or problem?, European Integration Online Papers 8(16), http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2004-016.htm Rhodes, R.A.W. (1997): Understanding governance: policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability. Milton Keyned: Open University Press. Sabatier, P.A.; Jenkins-Smith, H.C. (eds.) (1993): Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Boulder: Westview Press. Salone, C. (1999): Il territorio negoziato. Strategie, coalizioni e “patti” nelle nuove politiche territoriali. Firenze: Alinea.

Scharpf, F.W. (1997): Games real actors play: Actor-centered institutionalism in policy research. Boulder: Westview Press. Schimmelfenning, F.; Sedelmeier, U. (eds.) (2005): The Europeanization of central and eastern Europe. Ithaca (NY): Cornell University Press. Schön, D. (1983): The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic Books. Vettoretto, L. (2009): Planning Cultures in Italy – Reformism, Laissez-Faire and Contemporary Trends. In Knieling, J.; Othengrafen, F. (eds.): Planning cultures in Europe. Farnham: Ashgate, pp.189–204. Vries, J. de (2002): Grenzen verkend, Internationalisering van de ruimtelijke planning in de Benelux, Stedelijke en Regionale Verkenningen 27, Delft: Delft University Press. Waterhout, B. (2008): The Institutionalisation of European Spatial Planning. Amsterdam: IOS Press. Zucconi, G. (1989): La città contesa. Dagli ingegneri sanitari agli urbanisti (1885–1942). Milano: Jaca Book.

disP 186 · 3/2011

53

Giancarlo Cotella Department of International Planning Systems University of Kaiserslautern Building 3 Pfaffenbergstrasse 95 D-67663 Kaiserslautern [email protected] Umberto Janin Rivolin Dipartimento Interateneo Territorio (DITER) Politecnico di Torino 39 Viale Mattioli I-10125 Torino [email protected].