Conference Agenda

Background

Being rooted in the track theme, which sees social innovation as a mechanism for empowering citizens and community organizations, this paper poses a different point of view. Focusing on stakeholders’ participation to overcome the gap between institutions and local needs, we discuss if incoming novelties should be different according to contexts. We consider the empowerment of local communities in developing countries where “new” values and cultures might not be always the same. Particularly we focus upon accountability schemes of initiatives to foster local communities’ growth. And we do this also discussing the concepts of commons. In synthesis we pose the following research question: might it be that reporting schemes of projects cannot account for the effectiveness of a developing program because they are framed on aiders’ view of social innovation rather than on recipients’ empowerment needs?

Design/methodology

We use a multi-method approach to look specifically for both development (to use the results from one to help to develop or inform the other ones) and initiation (to discover paradoxes and contradictions). We investigated three different projects of community empowerment: two in Kenya and one in Ethiopia. The Ethiopian case refers to the realisation of a health assistance and screening Lab, financed by no profit funds; one in Kenya refers to foreign public aids for the agricultural growth of peripherical territories; the other refers to a self-community initiative in a coffee farm.

We firstly run a desk analysis of presentations, schemes, rules, and regulations of the different initiatives. Then, in the Ethiopian case we set our investigation within participant observation frameworks, thus involving active looking, improving memory, informal interviewing, writing detailed field notes. In the first Kenyan case we employ integrative informational resources that transcend traditional documental analysis practices, with the objective of augmenting contemporary frameworks in conjunction with heterodox methodologies, thus permitting a comprehensive analysis that encapsulates emotions and interactions previously overlooked by conventional investigation approaches. Lastly, in the second Kenyan case we conducted exploratory targeted qualitative interviews with privileged witnesses able to offer insights as experts in the area.

Results/findings

Our results are in line with the issues raised by Hopper et al. (2017), under which accounting is an instrument with different impacts and manifestations across Northern and Southern countries. Particularly, we stressed on the fact that there cannot be a simple transference of technical systems, regulations, and concepts, but, especially if considering social and environmental issues, it should take into account context’s specificities. Indeed, the self-initiative is completely different from the externally financed (by public and not profit) ones. But most of all, it appears to be definitively more effective. And one of its specificities relies on the consideration of the farm estate as a common for the community. A common which they fight to defend against the idea of a different exploitation of the land by the owners (not public anymore). These results, although based only on three cases of a still ongoing investigation, strive for reconsidering the concept of sustainability and empowerment in developing countries.

In Italy, experiences of bottom-up care of the commons, starting with the occupations of 2012, have rekindled interest in the topic, which was the subject of a draft bill drawn up by the Rodotà Commission in 2007 and never turned into a national law. The illegal occupations of abandoned public property have acted as a spur to imagine managing - even if only at the municipal level - the experiences of community governance that seem to escape the public-private dichotomy, setting themselves in an unexplored legal space to be regulated also by private law instruments. These realities have mostly been managed through cooperation pacts provided for by municipal regulations, but in some cases, collective self-government of the asset has been preferred to shared management. Among these, the ‘Neapolitan case’ stands out. It is especially relevant because, starting from the self-declaration of civic use of the Ex Asilo Filangieri recognised by the De Magistris Council, the City of Naples made an amendment to the municipal statute recognising the category of ‘common good’. These experiences, which represent virtuous examples of participatory urban regeneration, are often realised from initiatives by artistic collectives that use public art as a significant tool for the development of territories, to create places of culture and sharing for the whole community.

The paper aims to deepen the role that cultural heritage take on in promoting the development of culture, understood as an ‘essential evolutionary condition of civil society’. In this perspective, in fact, the goods (tangible and intangible) that make up the cultural heritage are configured not only as a vehicle of culture, but also as a “flywheel” for the development of territories and tools for social innovation and, for this reason, a generalised and widespread ‘consumption’ (or, better, ‘fruition’) of them is ‘desirable’. Cultural heritage is thus configured, in all its complexity, as a ‘spendable resource’, in the sense that the development and enhancement of the potential of culture (and of the cultural heritage of the territory) can become the pivot around which to build development models capable of combining ‘spiritual’ wellbeing, deriving from the enjoyment of heritage, and ‘material’ wellbeing, by which is meant socio-economic growth, developing community building strategies capable of uniting the world of culture, the world of research and citizenship as a whole. An idea that, on closer inspection, underlies the current European programming cycle (and the NRP), in particular, and the European cohesion policy and its financial instruments, in general, as can be seen from the 2021-2027 Partnership Agreement, which prioritises ‘initiatives in the cultural and creative field that integrate the institutional offer with the non-profit sectors, aimed at regenerating and revitalising cultural and heritage places, or other public spaces or spaces for public use with the active involvement of local communities’. Initiatives that may include interventions for the structural recovery and reuse of the spaces concerned, where functional to projects of cultural participation, inclusion and social innovation.

(Research Questions). This research explores how Italy's collaborative governance tools, rooted in the Administrative Procedure Law (Law 241/1990) and the Third Sector Code (Legislative Decree 117/2017), embody principles of social innovation. It investigates their application in managing urban commons, their replicability in international contexts, and the potential of technology to enhance these processes.

(Relevance for society). Collaborative governance addresses the growing complexity of societal challenges, promoting inclusive and participatory models. Urban commons management exemplifies this approach, fostering co-created solutions that engage public administrations, civil society, and private stakeholders. By emphasizing cooperation rather than competition, these tools enhance resource optimization and societal trust, particularly in areas of urban regeneration and rural development.

(Theoretical Framework). The study draws on theories of social innovation and governance networks, focusing on collaborative approaches that challenge traditional authoritative and contractual administrative models. It emphasizes how co-programming (defining shared priorities) and co-project (jointly developing and implementing solutions) reflect a paradigm shift toward collaborative public service delivery.

(Methods of Data Collection). Data are collected through a combination of case studies, policy analysis, and stakeholder interviews. Particular attention was given to municipal regulations governing urban commons and the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (PNRR), which provides a framework for applying these tools at a broader scale.

(Empirical Evidence). Italian municipalities have implemented collaborative governance tools for urban commons, despite the absence of comprehensive national legislation. Examples include urban regeneration initiatives where co-designed agreements address local needs effectively. Additionally, the PNRR's “Bando Borghi" as little village funds program highlights the adaptability of these tools in rural contexts, involving local associations in planning and implementing community-focused projects.

For the social innovation role of the research is important highlight the co-programming and co-design that operationalize social innovation principles by creating inclusive processes that prioritize shared objectives and accountability.

About international replicability, these tools are adaptable to diverse contexts, such as rural areas with limited resources or densely populated cities with complex stakeholder dynamics. Their flexibility supports sustainable development and equitable decision-making globally.

For a Role of Technology: digital platforms play a pivotal role in disseminating information, better enabling stakeholder engagement, and ensuring transparency. For example, open data dashboards and call-for-proposal platforms improve accessibility, inclusivity, and monitoring of collaborative actions.

Collaborative governance tools in Italy offer a promising model for addressing complex societal challenges through inclusive and adaptive processes. By integrating social innovation principles and leveraging technology, these tools can enhance public service delivery and community engagement. Their application in managing urban commons demonstrates their potential to bridge gaps between public and private sectors, fostering trust and co-responsibility. Expanding their use, particularly under the PNRR framework, could set a benchmark for collaborative governance globally.