Europeanisation and territorial representation in Italy

Abstract

This article aims to examine how, and to what extent, the process of Europeanisation has affected the reshaping of territorial representation in Italy. To explore this research question, it was considered how European Cohesion Policy and structural funds exercise a potential influence over the key dimensions of representation by providing regions with the opportunity to strengthen their roles as both ‘actors’ and ‘arenas’ of representation. Empirical research conducted through interviews and the analysis of documents in all twenty Italian regions revealed how each region has reacted to structural funds in a distinctive way due to different internal factors, such as the legacy of pre-existing policy styles and political structures, and the attitudes of the political/administrative elite. The article discusses this point in detail by focusing on the changes that occurred (or did not occur) at the regional level in light of the aforementioned dimensions of representation.

Acknowledgement

The authors of the article would like to thank warmly the two anonymous referees for their comments that helped to improve this final draft.

Notes

1. The importance of political and administrative actors in translating the process of Europeanisation into the domestic context has also been stressed by recent literature on the topic (Marks 1997; Boerzel and Risse 2001; Bukowski et al. 2003; Featherstone and Radaelli 2003). For the Italian case in particular, see the findings by Piattoni and Smyrl (2003) and Gualini (2004).

2. A large number of studies have pointed out the huge difference between the Centre and North of the country and the South (the Italian ‘Mezzogiorno’), in terms of politics, administrative style and, of course, representation processes. Among them, we recall here Cartocci (1990, 1994), Putnam et al. (1985) and Putnam (1993).

3. The research group was directed by Leonardo Morlino and formed by Chiara De Micheli, Roberto Di Quirico, Valeria Fargion, Nicola Giannelli, Paolo Graziano, Andrea Lippi, Stefania Profeti at the Department of Political Science and Sociology of the University of Florence. Daniele Caramani, Ciro D'Amore, Sofia Mannozzi, Giuseppina Merlini, Massimo Morisi, and Lara Panzani also took part in the first phase of research.

4. For instance, in 1998 the Italian Minister of the Treasury (Carlo Azeglio Ciampi) signed an agreement with the European Commissioner for Regional Policy (Monika Wulf-Mathies), in which Italian regions were asked to reach a compulsory 38% threshold of funds spending within the year.

5. At the beginning of the 2000–06 programming period, in fact, the Italian Ministry of the Treasury put aside 6% of the European resources in order to assign them to the best performing regions in 2003. This national ‘efficiency’ reserve was added to the analogous 4% bonus provided by the European Commission in the new structural funds regulations of 1999.

6. For a more detailed account of such indicators, see Profeti (2006).

7. Latium is quite difficult to classify because its proactive role in establishing a representation bureau in Brussels clashes with its inertia as far as interregional associations and partnerships are concerned.

8. Interviews with regional officials, May 2001–June 2002. To see the complete list of those interviewed, please consult the CIRES (http://www.cires-ricerca.it/publications/publications.php).

9. Interview with a former president of the Tuscany region (in charge from 1992 to 2000), Florence, 22 November 2002.

10. A complete and insightful reconstruction of this event is provided by Andrea Ciaffi (2001).

11. Interview with a Piedmontese official, Industry Department, 26 June 2001.

12. Interview with a Ligurian official, European Affairs Department, Genoa, 3 June 2001.

13. From 1950 to the early 1990s, in fact, the Southern Italian regions received special national funds thanks to the so-called ‘Cassa per il Mezzogiorno’. In addition, most of the national financial transfers for assistance policies were devoted to the South of the country (Trigilia 1992).

14. Interview with the head of the DPS, Rome, 3 April 2003.

15. Quotas of the 6% bonus attributed to the Objective 1 Italian regions: Basilicata: 134.9; Campania: 98.2; Apulia: 88.9; Sicily: 79.5; Sardinia: 40.9; Calabria: 38.6 (resources actually obtained by the region/max. regional quota previously established by the DPS = 100). See Department for Development Policies and Cohesion (DPS), Annual Report 2003.

The influence of Europeanisation, however, should not be overstated; in particular, our findings do not support resource-pull hypotheses. We can recall, for instance, that Southern regions, which were supposed to benefit the most from European funds, certainly did not exhibit proactive behaviour. Further, two out of the four Centre-Northern regions which performed very actively at the supranational level – namely Lombardy and Emilia Romagna – hardly benefited at all from Objective 2 funding during the first two programming periods.