Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:11:46.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Local Autonomies, Regional Governments and Metropolitan Areas in Italy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2009

Robert H. Evans  and
Felice Rizzi
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The need to introduce flexibility and diversity into an increasingly centralized and insensitive system of political and administrative controls is one of the most strongly felt problems in modern democracies. In particular, reforms must be fostered in state governmental and administrative structures to reckon with the evergrowing weight of regional units and metropolitan areas. The debate affects not only the United States but also Western Europe, witness the recent reforms in England, Belgium, France, the Netherlands, and Italy. Italy, after delaying by some twenty years the application of the 1948 constitution which called for the establishment of regional governments, has taken steps which should transform the political-administrative base of the country and may serve as guidelines for other societies where regional allegiances remain strong and where metropolitan areas outweigh rural ones in terms of financial needs and commitments. The changes, some twenty years in the works, are worthy of attention as they offer an interesting case of intrastate regionalism coupled with successful elements of micro-regionalization.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Politics , Volume 40 , Issue 1 , January 1978 , pp. 58 - 76
Copyright
Copyright © University of Notre Dame 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Lambrechts, William, “Régionalisation et Administration: Conséquences et perspectives,” International Review of Administrative Sciences (IRAS), 39 (1973), 271–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Delpérée, Francis, “La Belgique, État Fédéral?” Revue du Droit Public et de la Science Politique en France et a l'etranger, 05–06 1972, no. 3, 607–660Google Scholar; van Impe, Herman, “La Beligique sous une constitution révisée,” Revue du Droit Public et de la Science Politique en France et a l'etranger, 03–04 1976, no. 2, 463–76Google Scholar; “Belgique: La révision constitutionelle et les problèmes communautaires,” La Documentation Française, Problèmes économiques et sociaux, 5–12 January 1973, 1–67; Baguenard, Jacques, “L'organisation régionale (loi du 5 juillet 1972),” Revue du Droit Public et de la Science Politique en France et a l'etranger, 11–12 1973, no. 6, 1405–87Google Scholar; “La Région,” Cahiers Français, nos. 158, 159 (January–April 1973), 1–96.

2 Among the various reasons invoked were the tensions of the cold war, fear of the Italian Communist party's establishing a “red belt,” the lack of strength of the central government and, more recently, the effects regionalism will have on the Christian Democratic party patronage network.

3 For a treatment of the new regional structures in English, see Allum, P. A., Italy: Republic without Government? (New York, 1973), pp. 225–38Google Scholar; Watson, M. A., Regional Development Policy and Administration in Italy (London, 1970)Google Scholar; Allum, P. A. and Amyot, G., “Regionalism in Italy: Old Wine in New Bottles?” Parliamentary Affairs, 24 (1970), 53–78Google Scholar; Fried, Robert C., “Administrative Pluralism and Italian Regional Planning,” Public Administration, 46 (1967), 403–415Google Scholar; Woodcock, George, “Regional Government: The Italian Example,” Public Administration, 45 (1968), 375–92Google Scholar. In French see special issue of International Review of Administrative Sciences, 37 (1971), 1–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar, where leading Italian specialists deal with the problems facing the regions at the moment of their implementation. In Italian, Gizzi, Elio, Manuale di Diritto Regionale (Milan, 1972)Google Scholar, provides a convenient juridical overview accompanied by a good critical bibliography. For ongoing development and legislation, Institute di studi giuridici regionali, Le Regioni, Rivista di documentazione e giurisprudenza (1973); and Centro di documentazione regionale, Le leggi regionali con annotazioni e commenti (1973), Italy is divided into the following political administrative units: circa 8,000 communes, 92 provinces and 20 regions. In this article little attention is paid to the provinces that lost most of their powers with the creation of the regions. The expressions commune, municipality and local government will be used interchangeably in what follows.

4 A financial crisis invests more than half of the approximately 8,000 Italian municipalities. Though extreme cases, one can note that the entire income of the commune of Rome barely covers the interest payments on the municipal debt, and that Naples and Messina do not have sufficient revenues to pay the wages of their employees. Even in a town like Bologna, cited as an example of good administration, over one-third of the municipal income goes to service. See Zariski, R., Italy: The Politics of Uneven Development (Hinsdale, 1972), p. 120Google Scholar.

5 Article 131, modified by constitutional law 1, 31-12-1963, established Piedmont, Lombardy, Venetia, Liguria, Emilia-Romagna, Tuscany, Umbria, Marches, Abruzzi, Molise, Campania, Puglia, Basilicata, Calabria and five special regions, Valle d'Aosta, Trentino-Alto Adige, Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Sicily and Sardegna. The latter, in accordance with article 116, were granted “particular forms and conditions of autonomy.” See Ottaviano, Vittorio, “Tendances dans l'évolution des régions à statut special,” IRAS, 37 (1971), 28–34Google Scholar. On the ordinary regions, Aldo Piras, “Les régions à statut ordinaire,” ibid., pp. 35–40.

6 Prior to 1972 this was of the competence of the prefect, the arm of the central government in the provinces. He now only controls the organs and functions of local governments (mayors, assessors and municipal councils). For an overview, see Fried, Robert C., The Italian Prefects (New Haven, 1963)Google Scholar; Ragionieri, E., Politica e amministrazione nella storia dett'Italia unita (Bari, 1967)Google Scholar; Sandulli, Aldo Maria, “La problématique des contrôls,” IRAS, 37 (1971), 48–51Google Scholar.

7 See Berti, Giorgio, “Les nouvelles tendances dans l'organisation des administrations locales en Italie,” IRAS, 37 (1971), 45Google Scholar; and Lambrechts, “Régionalisation et Administration,” for examples in other European countries.

8 The communes, however, insist they are entitled to partial fiscal autonomy, in matters of taxation in particular, on the grounds that if citizens want certain services they should pay for them. This could represent an additional means to increase local autonomies and above all to help the municipalities decrease their indebtedness.

9 Buscema, Salvatore, “Problèmes actuels du budget de l'Etata,” IRAS, 37 (1971), 22–23Google Scholar.

10 Pastori, Giorgio, “L'administration du personnel et la bureaucratie en Italie,” IRAS, 37 (1971), 55–56Google Scholar.

11 Sepe, Onorato, “Les projects de réforme de l'administration de l'Etat: Décentralisation et réorganisation des ministères,” IRAS, 37 (1971), 14–15Google Scholar.

12 See Benvenuti, Feliciano, “Les tendances de transformation de l'administration italienne,” IRAS, 37 (1971), 5Google Scholar.

13 Ottaviano, , “Tendances dans l'évolution des régions,” pp. 26–29Google Scholar.

14 Allum, and Amyot, , “Regionalism in Italy,” p. 54Google Scholar; Gizzi, , Manuale di Diritto Regionale, pp. 1–13Google Scholar.

15 Woodcock, “Regional Government: The Italian Example.”

16 Miele, Giovanni, “Introduzione,” Le regione: politica, o amministrazione? (Milan, 1973), p. 19Google Scholar; Piras, , “Les régions à statut ordinaire,” p. 34Google Scholar.

17 Lambrechts, , “Régionalisation et Administration,” p. 285Google Scholar.

18 Istituto Centrale di Statistica, Le regioni in cifre (Rome, 1975)Google Scholar.

19 Istituto Centrale di Statistica, Annuario statistico italiano (Rome, 1974). 1974)Google Scholar.

20 Laws 62, 10-2-1953; 103, 17-2-1968; 281, 16-5-1970; 1084, 23-12-1970; Presidential Decrees, 14-15-1-1972.

21 Gizzi, , Manuale di Diritto Regionale, pp. 29Google Scholar, 143.

22 Ottaviano, , “Tendances dans l'évolution des régions,” pp. 29–34Google Scholar; Piras, , “Les régions a statut ordinaire,” p. 36Google Scholar.

23 Piras, , “Les régions à statut ordinaire,” p. 39Google Scholar.

24 For consideration of particular cases see in IRAS, 37 (1971)Google Scholar, Spantigati, Federico, “L'urbanisme dans la récente législation italienne,” pp. 74–77Google Scholar; De Cesare, Giovanni, “La loi italienne de reforme hospitaliere du 12 fevrier 1968,” pp. 83–85Google Scholar; Quaranta, Alfonso, “La legislation italienne sur les transports publics,” pp. 91–99Google Scholar; Valentini, Stelio, “L'organisation du tourisme italien,” pp. 100–104Google Scholar.

25 Bassani, Franco, Le Regioni fra Stato e communità locali (Bologna, 1976), pp. 316–21Google Scholar. Berti, , “Les nouvelles tendances dans l'organisation en Italie,” p. 43Google Scholar; Sepe, , “Les projects de réforme de l'administration de l'État,” p. 12Google Scholar.

26 Lambrechts, , “Régionalisation et Administration,” p. 285Google Scholar.

27 Gizzi, , Manuale di Diritto Regionale, p. 328Google Scholar. On the question of regional financial autonomy see Buscema, , “Problèmes actuels du budget de l'État,” p. 23Google Scholar. The financial limitations are even greater in France and Belgium; see “Le Région,” Cahiers Français, p. 28; Delpérée, , “La Belgique, État Fédéral?” p. 637Google Scholar.

28 Sandulli, , “La problématique des contrôls,” p. 50Google Scholar.

29 Martha H. Good, “Policy-Making in the Italian Regions: The Formative Years, 1970–1974,” unpublished, table 8.

30 Modica, Enzo, “Struttura instituzionale delle regioni,” A che punto siamo con le regioni? Quaderni di Ulisse, 09 1974, p. 26Google Scholar.

31 Guido Fanti, “L'esperienza emiliana,” ibid., p. 78. For a general view of the consequences of regional reform on parties, see Kogan, Norman, “Impact of the New Italian Regional Governments on the Structure of Power within the Parties,” Comparative Politics, 7, no. 3 (1975), 383–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 Compagna, F., La politica, della città (Bari, 1967)Google Scholar; see also Ardigò, A., L'area metropolitana come sistema sociale (Trento, 1964)Google Scholar.

33 Decision centers are characterized by an overwhelming concentration of industrial and financial decision-making bodies; conception centers are essentially purveyors of political and administrative services as well as centers for research; service centers provide limited administrative services or rare services (e.g., Taranto steel mills). See Compagna, , La politica della città, and “Problemi inerenti alle zone di fuga,” in Gli squilibri territoriali e l'articolazione dell' intervento pubblico (Milan, 1963), pp. 305–320Google Scholar; Gravier, J. F., L'aménagement et l'avenir des régions françaises (Paris, 1964)Google Scholar.

34 Gravier, , L'aménagement et l'avenir de regions françaises, p. 207Google Scholar.

35 Ardigò, A.. La diffusione urbana (Rome, 1967), p. 111Google Scholar. On migratory movements, see also Vitali, O., “Le migrazioni interne in Italia,” in Urbanizzazione e modernizzazione, ed. Germani, G. (Bologna, 1975), pp. 403–425Google Scholar.

36 Theodorson, G. A., Studies in Human Ecology (Evanston, 1961), p. 5Google Scholar. A gradient is any variable of the urban characteristics of the population which increases or diminishes according to the distance from the central city. While Ardigò recognizes this as an ideal model based on the radial city, he distinguishes three phases: population increments are concentrated in the city itself; population increases are greater in the first contiguous ring than in the city or a third contiguous ring.

37 Ardigò, A., “La formazione delle aree metropolitane in Italia oggi,” in Il fenomeno citta nella vita e nella cultura d'oggi, ed. Nardi, P. (Florence, 1971), p. 214Google Scholar.

38 Ibid., pp. 224–27.

39 Cafiero, S. and Busca, A., Lo suiluppo metropolitano in Italia (Rome, 1970)Google Scholar.

40 The literature on the southern question is abundant. Among scholars of different generations one can mention: Cattaneo, C., “Notizie naturali e civili sulla Lombardia,” in Scritti storici e geografici, eds. Salvemini, G. and Esteban, E. (Florence, 1957), pp. 309–310 ff.Google Scholar; Franchetti, L. and Sonnino, S., La Sicilia (Florence, 1925)Google Scholar; de Viti de Marco, A. “La politica commerciale e il Mezzogiorno,” in Un trentennio di lotte politiche (Rome, 1929)Google Scholar; Compagna, F., La questione meridionale (Milan, 1963)Google Scholar; Salvadori, M. L., II mito del buon governo (Torino, 1963)Google Scholar.

41 See the ongoing debate in the review Nord e Sud (1968–1970) edited by Compagna, F.Google Scholar.

42 Good, “Policy-Making in the Italian Regions,” table 3.

43 Various authors, Studi preliminari per una ricerca sulle istituzione di un ente intermediario tra provincia e commune (Milan, 1965)Google Scholar; Beltrame, G., “Tesi sul comprensorio,” in Città e società, no. 6 (1971), 30–73Google Scholar; Fiorelli, F., It governo della città (Milan, 1975)Google Scholar; Armaroli, P., Gli statuti delle regioni (Florence, 1971)Google Scholar; Berti, , “Les nouvelles tendances dans l'organisation en Italie,” p. 45Google Scholar.

44 Piedmont, 28-4-1975; Lombardy, 15-4-1975; Veneto, 30-4-1975; Emilia-Romagna, 23-1-1975; Lazio, 28-4-1975; Tuscany is studying three projects; the junta of Puglia presented a project, 11-3-1975.

45 In the case of Milan, see Villani, A., Piano e razionaligà urbana (Milan, 1975), pp. 71–139Google Scholar. for Rome, Fried, Robert C., Planning the Eternal City (New Haven, 1973)Google Scholar.

46 Emilia-Romagna, Regione, Regionale, Giunta, Progetto sulla organizzazione degli uffici, (Bozza), (Bologna, 1976), p. 153Google Scholar.

47 The demise of the province has been called for ever since the regions came into existence. Ugo La Malfa, the Republican party leader, has been the most resolute advocate of this measure. The DC, invoking spurious constitutional reasons, is reluctant to abolish an administrative unit that makes little sense in the regional context, and even less if the comprensori become a reality. The major reason for maintaining the province is its value as an instrument of patronage. In France, the maintenance of the department in a regional framework also appears questionable, though its existence is strongly reemphasized by the law of 5 July 1972 (see “Le Région,” Cahiers François, pp. 31–39).

48 Already in early July of 1976 Emilia-Romagna, Tuscany and Piedmont were pressuring the government for a speedy resolution of the problem.

49 See, for example, Morbidelli, G., “La delega dalle regioni agli enti locali in materia di urbanistica,” in La delega delle funzioni agli enti locali, Formez, Quaderno, no. 1 (1974), 109–147Google Scholar; Morpurgo, G., “Urbanistica e comprensori in Lombardia,” in Il comune democratico, nos. 3–4 (1975), 115–22Google Scholar.