SISP Conference 2023

The Section for Regional Studies and Local Policies promotes the research and analysis on the topics of sub-national politics, center-periphery relations, and local and regional public policies with the aim to stimulate the debate among scholars but also between academics and practitioners on the role of local communities and actors in solving complex policy challenges.
Local contexts are at the intersection of complex dynamics that merit to be deeply investigated from a political science perspective. Indeed, the 2008 economic crisis, climate change, ageing population, growing economic and social inequalities, the Covid-19 pandemic and health emergencies, natural disasters, the refugee crisis, and technological development have posed new and pressing challenges to sub-national governments.
The European Union is performing an increasing relevant role in defining the local agenda both at the regional and at the urban level. Regional policy still represents the EU’s main investment policy targeted to overcome territorial disparities. But old and new policy problems and, in particular, the green, digital and demographic transitions may exacerbate existing inequalities and produce new ones. Cohesion policy aspires to help European regions and cities solve these problems, but it also calls them to adopt a placed-based approach fostering integrated territorial development, partnerships, and investments, and enhancing complementarities among other EU policies.
Moreover, the implementation of the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP), with its huge investments in several policy sectors, requires every level of the Italian public administration to be able to effectively, efficiently and transparently manage funding and interventions.
Regional and local authorities are, therefore, called to put in place collaborative arrangements between public administration and profit and non-profit actors, integrated policy approaches, and coordination processes between institutional levels, that require strategic administrative capacities which are in some respect underdeveloped in Italy.
Regions and Municipalities are also the primary locus of political participation. In Italy electoral turnout has been high for decades but the recent elections in the regions Lombardy and Lazio saw a dramatic increase in abstentionism. And many commentators are wondering if this result is ushering a new season of distrust in traditional parties and in local governance. In the meanwhile, other forms of participation at the local level, like for instance volunteerism and civic associationism, are consolidating and new ones linked, for instance, to consumption, like solidarity purchasing groups or energy communities, are emerging.
Finally, an interesting topic in Italy in the academic debate about local politics is the re-launch of the debate on autonomy – an issue strongly supported by the League in Veneto and Lombardy but also by the Democratic Party in Emilia-Romagna. After the consultative referendum in 2017 the draft law by Senator Calderoli on differentiated autonomy is going to raise a sharp debate about solidarity among territories, reallocation of competences and powers among institutional levels and related potential conflicts, administrative capacities, and citizens rights.
Against this backdrop, a deep knowledge of local political dynamics, policy processes, actors’ relationships, and policy tools is particularly urgent, for both policy-makers and academics, in order to solve present and future complex challenges.
The Section invites proposals for panels and round tables, in Italian and English, that address issues related to local politics, local policies and local governance, in a national and/or comparative perspective, adopting a theoretical or a qualitative and/or a quantitative empirical approach.
A list of possible – but not exhaustive – research topics is the following:

The study of single or comparative case studies of policymaking in urban policy areas – such as environmental sustainability, housing, mobility, care, education, commerce, tourism, etc. – in their substantive components: agenda-setting, formulation, implementation analysis, and impact assessment.
The analysis of emerging policy problems at the local level, of their potential impact on local communities, the challenges they pose to local policymakers, and the solution adopted to cope with them by local actors.
The analysis of urban policies from a multi-level governance perspective with a particular focus on the type of relationships that could emerge among different institutional actors and the threats and opportunities engendered by multi-level settings.
The study of policy-design and the description and analysis of policy tools adopted by local policy-makers to implement urban policies aimed at addressing complex social, economic, and environmental challenges.
Innovation in local policy-making processes and the adoption of innovative and experimental approaches to policy formulation and implementation, including devices and processes of policy and services co-design and co-production among different actors, creative conflict management processes and deliberative practices.
The development of crisis governance from a multi-level and decentralized perspective in urban policy areas, the role of local policy actors and political leaders in crisis management and in prevention and recovery policies.
Local institutional reforms, from processes of territorial rescaling and reorganization of peripheral units in various public administration sectors (e.g. health, education, local public services) to local government reforms.
The description of mechanisms adopted to select the local political class, the description and analysis of the characteristics of the elected political class the analysis of the outcomes of electoral competitions, of party dynamics emerging between the local and the national level, of vote behavior at the local level, the description and analysis of council formation processes.
The debate about differentiated autonomy and its potential impacts on the redistribution of competences between Regions and Municipalities, on institutional capacities, and on national cohesion.
The study of political participatory dynamics at the local level with particular reference to membership in regional parties, adhesion to social movements, civic activism, volunteerism, and associationism.
The analysis of local public administration characteristics and administrative capacities, and their appropriateness to cope with old and new policy problems, to manage multi-level policies, and to implement NRRP interventions.

 

Migration to Southern Europe and specifically to Italy has for a long time been marked by a distinctive pattern combining migrants’ weak legal status with economic and social marginality. ‘Wanted but not welcomed’, Non-European migrant workers for many years could easily find informal and low-qualified jobs in the agriculture sector, constructions, or the care sector, while facing harsh challenges when seeking to obtain the status of permanent residents, citizenship or other forms of recognition as full members of the receiving societies.
In the last two decades, the arrival of thousands of asylum-seekers and humanitarian migrants from areas of political crises have considerably changed this pattern, downplaying economic utility considerations and labour market needs and bringing to the fore issues of reception and welcoming. These more recent ‘unwanted migrants’ have not necessarily also been ‘not welcomed’. During the 2015 European ‘asylum crisis’, the reception of migrants has often represented a laboratory for political and social innovation, particularly at the regional and local levels. In other words, the 2015 ‘asylum crisis’ and more recently, the arrival of thousands of Ukrainian refugees, have acted as catalysts for change in subnational migration and asylum policies and practices, opening a window of opportunity for social experimentation and the emergence of new paths and spaces of innovation.
This panel aims at exploring such paths and spaces. It welcomes contributions proposing theoretical-conceptual elaborations and original empirical analyses of innovative policies and practices of migrant reception and integration in Italy or other Southern European countries – particularly focusing on the local and regional levels – including case-studies and comparative qualitative and/or quantitative analyses.
A non-exclusive list of topics that are particularly welcome include:
- Regional and local level governance networks favouring innovative practices and policies of reception.
- Policy networks and intermediary venues promoting innovative approaches to migrants’ reception and integration.
- The impact of political ideology and polarization on processes and practices of policy innovation.
- Cross-country and transnational policy learning processes, also at different levels of governance.

 

Migration to Southern Europe and specifically to Italy has for a long time been marked by a distinctive pattern combining migrants’ weak legal status with economic and social marginality. ‘Wanted but not welcomed’, Non-European migrant workers for many years could easily find informal and low-qualified jobs in the agriculture sector, constructions, or the care sector, while facing harsh challenges when seeking to obtain the status of permanent residents, citizenship or other forms of recognition as full members of the receiving societies.
In the last two decades, the arrival of thousands of asylum-seekers and humanitarian migrants from areas of political crises have considerably changed this pattern, downplaying economic utility considerations and labour market needs and bringing to the fore issues of reception and welcoming. These more recent ‘unwanted migrants’ have not necessarily also been ‘not welcomed’. During the 2015 European ‘asylum crisis’, the reception of migrants has often represented a laboratory for political and social innovation, particularly at the regional and local levels. In other words, the 2015 ‘asylum crisis’ and more recently, the arrival of thousands of Ukrainian refugees, have acted as catalysts for change in subnational migration and asylum policies and practices, opening a window of opportunity for social experimentation and the emergence of new paths and spaces of innovation.
This panel aims at exploring such paths and spaces. It welcomes contributions proposing theoretical-conceptual elaborations and original empirical analyses of innovative policies and practices of migrant reception and integration in Italy or other Southern European countries – particularly focusing on the local and regional levels – including case-studies and comparative qualitative and/or quantitative analyses.
A non-exclusive list of topics that are particularly welcome include:
- Regional and local level governance networks favouring innovative practices and policies of reception.
- Policy networks and intermediary venues promoting innovative approaches to migrants’ reception and integration.
- The impact of political ideology and polarization on processes and practices of policy innovation.
- Cross-country and transnational policy learning processes, also at different levels of governance.

 

Political instability can arise from a wide range of factors and can have significant consequences not only at the national level but also at the sub-national level, affecting regional political representation, leadership, territorial dynamics (i.e. interactions between central and regional governments), and policies. Although scholars have extensively researched how political instability, growing fragmentation, and fluid party dynamics impact the functioning of national governments, there has been comparatively less research on the effects of such transformations on regional politics and public policy. This panel seeks to address this gap by focusing on the regional level, which lies between central and local government and where regional instability can manifest differently across regions of the same country and across countries.

The panel has four objectives, which are to:
1. Theoretically disentangle the different dimensions of regional instability related to party, elite, territorial, and policy dynamics.
2. Analyse the ways in which national party changes affect regional party instability and explore to what extent such processes are linked, including any differences that may emerge at the regional electoral level.
3. Identify and explain how regional instability impacts on both regional party systems and the recruitment of regional representatives, in comparative perspective or across regions within the same country.
4. Illustrate how regional elites develop policies in a context of increasing multi-level instability and uncertainty.

Therefore, we invite papers that address the following topics:
• Changes in regional election outcomes (and turnout), voting behaviour and party systems (with the emergence of new political actors)
• Changes in political leadership at the regional level
• Changes in regional representation
• Changes in the interactions between central authorities and regions
• Changes in regional policy-making processes and policy outcomes.

 

Political instability can arise from a wide range of factors and can have significant consequences not only at the national level but also at the sub-national level, affecting regional political representation, leadership, territorial dynamics (i.e. interactions between central and regional governments), and policies. Although scholars have extensively researched how political instability, growing fragmentation, and fluid party dynamics impact the functioning of national governments, there has been comparatively less research on the effects of such transformations on regional politics and public policy. This panel seeks to address this gap by focusing on the regional level, which lies between central and local government and where regional instability can manifest differently across regions of the same country and across countries.

The panel has four objectives, which are to:
1. Theoretically disentangle the different dimensions of regional instability related to party, elite, territorial, and policy dynamics.
2. Analyse the ways in which national party changes affect regional party instability and explore to what extent such processes are linked, including any differences that may emerge at the regional electoral level.
3. Identify and explain how regional instability impacts on both regional party systems and the recruitment of regional representatives, in comparative perspective or across regions within the same country.
4. Illustrate how regional elites develop policies in a context of increasing multi-level instability and uncertainty.

Therefore, we invite papers that address the following topics:
• Changes in regional election outcomes (and turnout), voting behaviour and party systems (with the emergence of new political actors)
• Changes in political leadership at the regional level
• Changes in regional representation
• Changes in the interactions between central authorities and regions
• Changes in regional policy-making processes and policy outcomes.

 

Brexit, the Covid-19 pandemic, the resulting economic crisis (following the previous crisis of 2008), climate change and environmental issues and lastly the current conflict in Ukraine, have undoubtedly profoundly changed politics and society in Europe. The sense of uncertainty and fear that citizens experience is also reflected at the regional and local level, engendering a stronger sense of "globality". The answers that European and central authorities have provided to these problems have not always gone in the direction desired at the sub-state level. In various (particularly Western) European regions characterized by what scientific literature defines as the centre-periphery cleavage, these processes have reinforced political contestation of the existent so-called nation-states. In addition, the Russian attack on Ukraine has further increased the socio-political relevance of regional and (sub)national ethnic identities. Even after the Scottish and Catalan referenda, searches for self-determination and "national" recognition intermittently retain their political saliency.
This panel aims to clarify the impact of these current transformations on European regionalist and pro-independence movements and organizations, as well as on institutions and civic society organizations in regions with a strong sub-state identity. What is the role of sub-state regional identities in this context? How do sub-state political parties and social movements interpret what is happening? Have they taken steps to reshape their ideological baggage? If, and how, are regional institutions actively involved in facing these contemporary challenges? Finally: have the drives for regional self-determination and sub-state identities in Europe decreased or increased? And what is foreseen for the immediate future?
Those interested can present and discuss papers, also with a multidisciplinary viewpoint, both on particular case studies and in a comparative and/or European perspective, indifferently in Italian, English, French or Spanish.

 

Brexit, the Covid-19 pandemic, the resulting economic crisis (following the previous crisis of 2008), climate change and environmental issues and lastly the current conflict in Ukraine, have undoubtedly profoundly changed politics and society in Europe. The sense of uncertainty and fear that citizens experience is also reflected at the regional and local level, engendering a stronger sense of "globality". The answers that European and central authorities have provided to these problems have not always gone in the direction desired at the sub-state level. In various (particularly Western) European regions characterized by what scientific literature defines as the centre-periphery cleavage, these processes have reinforced political contestation of the existent so-called nation-states. In addition, the Russian attack on Ukraine has further increased the socio-political relevance of regional and (sub)national ethnic identities. Even after the Scottish and Catalan referenda, searches for self-determination and "national" recognition intermittently retain their political saliency.
This panel aims to clarify the impact of these current transformations on European regionalist and pro-independence movements and organizations, as well as on institutions and civic society organizations in regions with a strong sub-state identity. What is the role of sub-state regional identities in this context? How do sub-state political parties and social movements interpret what is happening? Have they taken steps to reshape their ideological baggage? If, and how, are regional institutions actively involved in facing these contemporary challenges? Finally: have the drives for regional self-determination and sub-state identities in Europe decreased or increased? And what is foreseen for the immediate future?
Those interested can present and discuss papers, also with a multidisciplinary viewpoint, both on particular case studies and in a comparative and/or European perspective, indifferently in Italian, English, French or Spanish.

 

Il Partenariato Pubblico Privato (PPP) è ormai sempre più diffuso nei processi di formulazione e attuazione delle politiche pubbliche. Da un lato, assistiamo al proliferare di dispositivi partecipativi e deliberativi volti a includere attori non eletti (esperti, organizzazioni private profit e non profit, associazioni e gruppi di base, comuni cittadini) in maniera strutturata e trasparente nel disegno delle politiche. Dall’altro, le amministrazioni pubbliche, soprattutto a livello locale, ricorrono in misura crescente a quelle forme di co-implementazione o esternalizzazione di servizi e produzione di beni pubblici che la Banca Mondiale ha definito come “contratti tra un soggetto privato e un’entita? pubblica, per la fornitura di un bene o servizio pubblico, nel quale il soggetto privato assume rischi significativi e la responsabilita? di gestione e la remunerazione sono legate ai risultati”.

Il dibattito su opportunità e insidie di queste nuove modalità di azione pubblica, dove l’attore politico e l’amministrazione pubblica mantiene l’ultima parola nei processi decisionali e il controllo formale nei processi di attuazione, è tutt’ora aperto.

Il panel accoglie contributi che, da una prospettiva di governance multilivello, contribuiscano a costruire un panorama delle forme e delle implicazioni delle partnership pubblico-privato nelle politiche pubbliche, con particolare attenzione alle politiche di livello sub-nazionale, dove queste pratiche sono ormai all’ordine del giorno.

Alcune esempi di temi di interesse (non esclusivo):

Quali forme assumono le partnership pubblico-private, in Italia e in altri contesti nazionali?

Quale ruolo giocano i diversi attori e come indirizzano i processi decisionali che sostanziano il disegno e l’attuazione delle politiche? Si pensi al ruolo delle fondazioni filantropiche (di origine bancaria, corporate, familiari, di comunità o di scopo), delle grandi multinazionali, delle società di consulenza private, delle banche e delle assicurazioni, delle associazioni di categoria, delle organizzazioni non profit, dei comuni cittadini.

Come mutano per effetto delle PPP le forme del governare, le relazioni tra centro e periferia e tra i diversi livelli istituzionali, l’efficacia dell’azione pubblica, la sostenibilità finanziaria e la capacità amministrativa delle organizzazioni pubbliche?

Quali divari (territoriali, politici, sociali) emergono per effetto dell’adozione di queste forme di collaborazione pubblico-privato?

In particolare rispetto alle politiche connesse al Piano Nazionale di Ripresa e Resilienza (PNRR) e alla transizione ecologica e-o digitale che hanno un asse di intervento trasversale prioritario nella riduzione dei divari territoriali, generazionali e di genere:
- Quali forme assumono le partnership pubblico-private ? Quale valore aggiunto e quali problemi solleva l’intervento delle fondazioni filantropiche e-o dei privati for profit nelle PPP che si sono attivate? Quali divari vengono presi in considerazione, come vengono declinati e come si intende ridurli nelle nella progettazione e nella realizzazione delle politiche di queste PPP?

 

Versione inglese:
This panel focuses on how different actors shape territory in local contexts, paying attention to private and public actors – and their relationship – in a layered and negotiated understanding of political regulation. Territory can be organised, regulated and ordered through different activities, involving both material and symbolic operations. In light of the processes of industrial decline, deindustrialisation, and the apparent dematerialisation of labour, new analytical and conceptual tools are required, to take into account the tensions between multiple scales (involving both governmental subsidiarity and economic/financial strategies) and different degrees and forms of territorialisation, de-territorialisation, re-territorialisation.
The interpretative lens through which we would like to see this process is that of paternalism, understood as an asymmetrical mode of action, aimed at the production of supposedly beneficial effects, developed within legitimising strategies. We are interested in exploring how public actors allow, sustain, reinforce, oppose, question, and change these processes through their regulative practices. This would allow us to discuss the shifting boundaries between spheres of action and regulation (public/private/hybrid), legitimation and contestation, in a complex balance between politicisation and depoliticization of territorial governance.
We encourage reflections exploring how productive activities can become structuring elements of the socio-economic, spatial, and environmental organisation of territories as a result of implicit and explicit negotiations. We are interested in learning about case studies, and we welcome ethnographic research, fieldwork and qualitative analyses, historical examination in the following areas (not exclusively): local welfare supporting employees of specific industries, and its relationship with public welfare; local environmental projects “greening” exhausted brownfields, their relationship with environmental concerns, and how they can be connected to touristic strategies of territorial development; building and development of entire cities/towns, and what happens in the aftermath of industrial decline; reinvestment of profits in social and cultural causes, either directly or through intermediary bodies, and other forms of compensation; the relationship between employment, wages, labour and local development strategies; how government coalitions and (smaller-than) urban regimes are constituted in these territories.

Versione italiana:
Questo panel si concentra sul modo in cui diversi attori danno forma al territorio nei contesti locali, prestando attenzione a quelli pubblici e privati - e alle loro relazioni - in una comprensione stratificata e negoziata della regolazione politica. Il territorio può essere organizzato, regolato e ordinato attraverso diverse attività, che coinvolgono operazioni sia materiali che simboliche. Alla luce dei processi di declino industriale, di deindustrializzazione e dell'apparente dematerializzazione del lavoro, sono necessari nuovi strumenti analitici e concettuali che tengano conto delle tensioni tra multiple scale (che coinvolgono sia la sussidiarietà del governo sia le strategie economico-finanziarie) e diversi gradi e forme di territorializzazione, de-territorializzazione, ri-territorializzazione.
La lente interpretativa attraverso cui vorremmo vedere questo processo è quella del paternalismo, inteso come modalità di azione asimmetrica, finalizzata alla produzione di effetti presumibilmente benefici, sviluppata all'interno di strategie di legittimazione. Ci interessa esplorare i modi in cui gli attori pubblici permettono, sostengono, rafforzano, si oppongono, mettono in discussione, cambiano questi processi attraverso le loro pratiche regolative. Questo ci permetterà di indagare i confini mutevoli tra sfere di azione e di regolazione (pubblica/privata/ibrida), legittimazione e contestazione, in un complesso equilibrio tra politicizzazione e depoliticizzazione della governance territoriale.
Incoraggiamo riflessioni che esplorino come le attività produttive possano diventare elementi strutturanti dell'organizzazione socio-economica, spaziale e ambientale dei territori come risultato di negoziazioni implicite ed esplicite. Siamo interessati a discutere casi studio e accogliamo proposte di ricerca etnografica, di lavoro sul campo e analisi qualitativa, l'esame storico dei seguenti temi (lista non esclusiva): il welfare locale a sostegno dei dipendenti di specifiche industrie e il suo rapporto con il welfare pubblico; progetti ambientali locali di "greening" di aree industriali dismesse, il loro rapporto con le tematiche ambientali e il modo in cui possono essere collegati a strategie turistiche di sviluppo territoriale; costruzione e sviluppo di intere città e cosa vi accade dopo il declino industriale; reinvestimento dei profitti in progetti sociali e culturali, direttamente o attraverso corpi intermedi, e altre forme di compensazione; il rapporto tra occupazione, salari, lavoro e strategie di sviluppo locale; come si costituiscono le coalizioni di governo e i regimi urbani (o locali) in questi territori.

 

The Street-Level Bureaucracy (SLB) theoretical framework, introduced by Lipsky (1980) more than 40 years ago, has had considerable recognition from the scientific community, especially in the United States and in the UK. However, contributions in the field have also considerably increased in the EU countries and in particular in northern Europe, especially in the Netherlands (Barberis, Paraciani, Saruis 2019). In contrast, the adoption of the SLB theory in the Southern and Eastern EU countries is still scarce. Only in recent times the interest in the topic is rising in these contexts, such as in Greece (Exadaktylos et al. 2021; Witcher 2021), Italy (Barberis, Paraciani and Saruis 2019; Leonardi and Stefani 202; Dallara and Lacchei 2021; Raspanti and Saruis 2021) and Poland (Gajewska, K.2017; Klaus and Szulecka 2021).
Thus, this panel aims at gathering scholars that study public service delivery with the lens of the SLB theory in Europe. The Session’s contribution to the SLB theory is threefold.
First, we want to understand SLB’s effectiveness in countries with very different characteristics from those in which SLB theory was born and developed. Indeed, context plays a crucial role, since various institutional and organisational settings (Jewell 2007) and different conceptions about citizenship, solidarity, and trust clearly affect service implementation (Rice 2017; Møller and Stensöta 2019).
Secondly, our goal is to set the scene for SLB theory in Europe developing new analytical tools relevant for the whole discipline. In the awareness that the state of knowledge on SLB is characterised by multiple diversity in terms of conceptualisations, research designs, epistemological positions and methods (Hupe, Hill and Buffet 2019), we would like to bring researchers working on SLB in Europe together with respect to their shared interest in studying the subject.
Finally, we are interested in analyzing how SLB use discretion and other mechanisms in service delivery to cope with complex implementation processes, whit what impacts on users and on multilevel settings.
The panel welcome papers that reflect on how discretion is used, street-level bureaucrats’ work context characteristics, the relationships between frontline workers and clients, as well as the impact of Street-level organizations in local policy implementation. Works comparing different local contexts, tasks, professionals or organisations are extremely welcomed.

 

The Street-Level Bureaucracy (SLB) theoretical framework, introduced by Lipsky (1980) more than 40 years ago, has had considerable recognition from the scientific community, especially in the United States and in the UK. However, contributions in the field have also considerably increased in the EU countries and in particular in northern Europe, especially in the Netherlands (Barberis, Paraciani, Saruis 2019). In contrast, the adoption of the SLB theory in the Southern and Eastern EU countries is still scarce. Only in recent times the interest in the topic is rising in these contexts, such as in Greece (Exadaktylos et al. 2021; Witcher 2021), Italy (Barberis, Paraciani and Saruis 2019; Leonardi and Stefani 202; Dallara and Lacchei 2021; Raspanti and Saruis 2021) and Poland (Gajewska, K.2017; Klaus and Szulecka 2021).
Thus, this panel aims at gathering scholars that study public service delivery with the lens of the SLB theory in Europe. The Session’s contribution to the SLB theory is threefold.
First, we want to understand SLB’s effectiveness in countries with very different characteristics from those in which SLB theory was born and developed. Indeed, context plays a crucial role, since various institutional and organisational settings (Jewell 2007) and different conceptions about citizenship, solidarity, and trust clearly affect service implementation (Rice 2017; Møller and Stensöta 2019).
Secondly, our goal is to set the scene for SLB theory in Europe developing new analytical tools relevant for the whole discipline. In the awareness that the state of knowledge on SLB is characterised by multiple diversity in terms of conceptualisations, research designs, epistemological positions and methods (Hupe, Hill and Buffet 2019), we would like to bring researchers working on SLB in Europe together with respect to their shared interest in studying the subject.
Finally, we are interested in analyzing how SLB use discretion and other mechanisms in service delivery to cope with complex implementation processes, whit what impacts on users and on multilevel settings.
The panel welcome papers that reflect on how discretion is used, street-level bureaucrats’ work context characteristics, the relationships between frontline workers and clients, as well as the impact of Street-level organizations in local policy implementation. Works comparing different local contexts, tasks, professionals or organisations are extremely welcomed.

 

Co-sponsorship con lo SG P.O.P.E.
The aim of this panel is to investigate the change that has taken place in the Italian political system, and in the subsystems connected to it, through an analysis of electoral behaviour over the thirty-year period 1993-2023: it is especially selecting our starting situation the first elections after the city mayors’ electoral system reform that we pose our storytelling into action.
In fact, the Italian political scenario has experienced considerable changes that often make scientifically comparative analysis difficult since then, this being especially true in the current context, which, in addition to what has changed over the years, has undergone further changes as a result of the pandemic, particularly in the relationship between public opinion, citizens and parties.

However, science does not allow for improper comparisons, so the analysis will focus on taking the constituencies of the Municipality of Rome as a constant element to maintain an analytical and descriptive coherence of the analysis.
Therefore we consider some dimensions of the vote: the geography of the electoral result and the synchronic competition in the constituencies; the analysis of the systemic effects due to the electoral legislation (parliament, region and municipality) within the same constituency in a pretty wide timeframe. Focusing on the Italian capital city as an electoral constituency, we provide a peculiar understanding of the effect of different electoral systems on citizenship in terms of participation and representation.

We expect data and methodology should be chosen to allow a diachronic and comparative perspective, with relevant graphs and descriptive statistics as a by-product, showing where and what changes occurred during thirty electoral years in Rome.
This panel, part of a wider project, allows an overview that offers a particularly significant contribution to the understanding of subsequent political events.