Public support to socia innovation. The need of a planning perspective

Journal title TERRITORIO
Author/s Elena Ostanel
Publishing Year 2022 Issue 2021/99
Language English Pages 5 P. 56-60 File size 119 KB
DOI 10.3280/TR2021-099008
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

In urban studies social innovation mainly means voluntary, non-statutory, citizen-led or community-led initiatives implemented to respond to unmet or new social needs. Until now the most influential research has overestimated the potential of social innovation to come up with progressive solutions alone without the support of public action. The paper considers public support to social innovation key to encourage local activation in fragile urban areas as well as to insert community-based activation in a strategic planning perspective. In discussing the cases of Barcelona and Bologna, the concluding remarks suggest a reframing of social innovation as a social and territorial construct that might need to be mobilised ad hoc within particular spatial settings.

Keywords: social innovation; community-based action; urban inclusion

  1. Albrechts L., 2012, «Reframing strategic spatial planning by using a coproduction perspective». Planning Theory, 12, 1: 46-63. DOI: 10.1177/1473095212452722
  2. Albrechts L., Van Den Broeck J., 2004, «From discourse to facts. The case of the rom project in Ghent, Belgium». Town Planning Review, 75, 2: 127-150.
  3. Bailey N., Pill M., 2013, «The potential for neighbourhood regeneration in a period of austerity. Changing forms of neighbourhood governance in two cities». Journal of Urban Regeneration & Renewal, 7, 2: 150-163.
  4. Balducci A., Mäntysalo R., 2013, eds., Urban planning as a trading zone. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-5854-4
  5. Balducci A., 2008, «Constructing (spatial) strategies in complex envi- ronments». In: Van den Broeck J., Moulaert F., Oosterlynck S. (eds.), Empowering the planning fields: ethics, creativity and action. Leuven: Acco, 79-99.
  6. Bevir M., 2009, «Decentring Policy Networks: A Theoretical Agenda». Public Administration, 87, 1.
  7. the regulation of the urban commons in Bologna». Space and Polity, 22, 3: 287-306. DOI: 10.1080/13562576.2018.1505492
  8. Blanco I., Gomà, R., 2016, El municipalisme del bé comú. Barcelona: Icaria. Blanco I., Leon M., 2016, «Social innovation, reciprocity and contentious politics: Facing the socio-urban crisis in Ciutat Meridiana, Barcelona». Urban Studies, 54, 9: 2172-2188. DOI: 10.1177/0042098016659044
  9. Blanco I., Nel·lo O., 2017, «Can social innovation be the answer? The role of citizen action in the face of increasing socio-spatial polarization». Territorio, 83: 7-16. DOI: 10.3280/TR2017-083001
  10. Brooks F., Zugazaga C., Wolk J., Adams M.A., 2005, «Resident perceptions
  11. of housing, neighbourhood and economic conditions after relocation from public housing undergoing HOPE VI redevelopment». Research on Social Work Practice, 15: 481-490.
  12. Comune di Bologna, 2020, La fragilità demografica, sociale ed economica nei comuni della Città metropolitana di Bologna 2020. -- www.inume- ca-sociale-ed-economica-nei-comuni-della-citta-2 (access: 2022.04.14). Comune di Bologna, Il Piano per l’Innovazione Urbana di Bologna. (access: 2022.04.14).
  13. Fincher R., 2015, «Urban policies and the intercultural city: a reflection on norms and contexts». In: Marconi G., Ostanel E. (eds.), The intercultural city. Exploring an elusive idea. London: IBTauris, 39-54.
  14. Galison P., 1999, «Trading zone: coordinating action and belief». In: Biagioli M. (ed.), The Science Studies Reader. London-New York: Routledge, 137-160.
  15. Garcia, M., 2016, «Citizenship Practices and Urban Governance in Euro- pean Cities». Urban Studies, 43, 4: 745-765.
  16. Gerometta J., Haussermann H., Longo G., 2015, «Social innovation and civil society in urban governance: strategies for an inclusive city». Urban Studies, 42, 11: 2007-2021. DOI: 10.1080/00420980500279851
  17. González S., Healey P., 2005, «A sociological institutionalist approach
  18. to the study of innovation in governance capacity». Urban Studies, 42, 11: 2055-69.
  19. Heiskala R., Hamalainen T.J., 2007, «Social innovation or hegemonic change? Rapid paradigm change in Finland in the 1980s and 1990s». In: Hamalainen T.J., Heiskala R. (eds.), Social innovations, institutional change and economic performance: making sense of structural adjust- ment processes in industrial sectors, regions and societies. Cheltenham: Elgar, 52-80.
  20. Holston J., Caldeira T., 2008, «Urban peripheries and the invention of citizenship». Harvard Design Magazine, 28: 19-23.
  21. Kazepov Y., 2010, Rescaling social policies: towards multilevel governance in Europe. Hampshire: Ashgate.
  22. Kevin H., Webber S., 2010, «Incremental planning and land-use conflict in the Toronto region’s Oak Ridges Moraine». Local Environment, 15, 2: 169-183.
  23. Klein J.L., Harrisson D., 2007, L’innovation sociale: émergence et effets sur la transformation des sociétés. Québec: Presses de l’Université du Québec. Madden D., Marcuse P., 2016, In defense of housing. The politics of crisis. New York: Versobooks.
  24. Mäntysalo R., Balducci A., Kangasoja J., 2011, «Planning as agonistic communication in a trading zone: Re-examining Lindblom’s par- tisan mutual adjustment». Planning Theory, 10, 3: 257-272. DOI: 10.1177/1473095210397147
  25. Massari M., 2021, «An open city of practices: cosmopolitan interactions in Bologna». In: Schröder J., Carta M., Scaffidi F., Contato A. (eds.), Cosmopolitan Habitat. A Research Agenda for Urban Resilience. Berlin: JOVIS Verlag GmbH, 2021, 230-235.
  26. Marcuse P., Van Kempen R., 2000, Globalizing Cities: A New Spatial Order? Dordrecht: Springer.
  27. Martinelli F., 2012, «Social Innovation or Social Exclusion? Innovating Social Services in the Context of a Retrenching Welfare State». In: Franz H.W., Hochgerner J., Howaldt J. (eds.), Challenge Social Innovation. Berlin: Springer, 169-180.
  28. Monardo B., Massari M., 2021, «A New Generation of ‘Urban Centers’: ‘Intermediate Places’ in Boston and Bologna». In: Bevilacqua C., Calabrò F., Della Spina L. (eds.), New Metropolitan Perspectives. NMP 2020. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, vol. 178. Cham: Springer, 925-938. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-48279-4_87
  29. Moulaert, F., MacCallum, D., Mehmood, A., Hamdouch, A., 2013, The International Handbook on Social Innovation, Collective Action, Social Learning and Transdisciplinary Research. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Moulaert F., Nussbaumer J., 2005, «Defining the social economy and its governance at neighbourhood level. A methodological reflexion». Urban Studies, 42, 11: 2071-2088. DOI: 10.1080/420980500279752
  30. Mulgan G., 2006, «The process of social innovation». Innovations, 1, 2: 145-162.
  31. Muller R., 1977, «Education: a school that has still to be invented». In: Jäggi M., Müller R., Schmid S. (eds.), The Red Bologna. London: Writers and Readers Publishing Cooperative: 111-133.
  32. Nel·lo O., 2018, «Le politiche di rigenerazione urbana a Barcellona e in Catalogna». In: Moccia D.F., Sepe M. (a cura di), Sviluppare, rige- nerare, ricostruire città. Questioni e sfide contemporanee. Roma: inu Edizioni, 91-111.
  33. Orioli V., Massari M., 2020, «Lo spazio dell’interazione: Luoghi, attori e strumenti a Bologna». In: Talia M. (a cura di), Le nuove comunità urbane e il valore strategico della conoscenza. come i processi cognitivi possono motivare la politica, garantire l’utilità del piano, offrire una via d’uscita dall’emergenza. Roma: Planum Publischer, 186-192.
  34. Peck J., Nik T., Brenner N., 2013, «Neoliberal Urbanism Redux?». Interna- tional Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37, 3: 1091-1099. DOI: 10.1111/1468-2427.12066
  35. Putnam R., 2004, Democracies in Flux: The Evolution of Social Capital in Contemporary Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  36. Sampson R.J., 2012, Great American City: Chicago and the Enduring Neighborhood Effect. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  37. Schmid S., 1977, The precondition. In The Red Bologna. London: Writers and Readers Publishing Cooperative.
  38. Servillo L.A, Van der Broek P., 2012, «The social construction of planning system. A strategic relational institutionalist approach». Planning Prac- tice and Research, 27, 1: 41-61. DOI: 10.1080/02697459.2012.661179
  39. Uitermark J., 2015, «Longing forWikitopia: The study and politics of self-organisation». Urban Studies, 52, 13: 2301-2312.
  40. Van Beckhoven E., Van Kempen R., 2003, «Social effects of urban re- structuring: a case study in Amsterdam and Utrecht, the Netherlands». Housing Studies, 18, 6: 853-875. DOI: 10.1080/0267303032000135474
  41. Van Kempen R., Posthumus H., Bolt G., 2012., «Urban restructuring, displaced households and neighbourhood change: results from three Dutch cities». In: van Ham M., Manley D., Bailey L., Simpson Duncan
  42. M. (eds.), Understanding neighbourhood dynamics: new insights for neighbourhood effects research. Springer: Dordrecht, 87-109. DOI: 10.1177/004209801348684

Elena Ostanel, Public support to socia innovation. The need of a planning perspective in "TERRITORIO" 99/2021, pp 56-60, DOI: 10.3280/TR2021-099008