Thesis title: Processi partecipativi e welfare a Roma: i casi dei Piani Urbani Integrati a Corviale e Tor Bella Monaca
This dissertation explores the transformation of local welfare governance in Italy through the processes of co-programming and co-design introduced by Law 328/2000 and later consolidated by the Third Sector Code (Legislative Decree 117/2017). Empirical analysis focuses on two case studies — the Integrated Urban Plans (PUI) of Corviale and Tor Bella Monaca in Rome — to assess whether, and under what conditions, the institutionalization of participatory practices can generate substantive deliberative outcomes. The study examines how these processes reshape the relationship between public administrations and the third sector, while influencing new forms of social citizenship and institutional innovation.
The theoretical framework adopts a neo-institutionalist and network governance perspective, enriched by contributions from the field of social innovation. Drawing on key theoretical models, the research conceptualizes the outcomes of participatory processes as a joint function of two main variables: the degree of institutionalization of procedures (clarity of mandate, rules of representation, and administrative accountability) and the degree of cohesion within the associative fabric (relational density, social capital, and mediation capacity).
Methodologically, the research employs a qualitative and comparative approach, based on participant observation, semi-structured interviews, and documentary analysis. This combination allows for the mapping of relationships, leadership dynamics, and collective learning processes. The comparative analysis of the two cases highlights differentiated trajectories in the development of local welfare systems.
In Corviale, co-programming is characterized by a high level of integration and by a form of participation that has become institutionalized over time, rooted in consolidated relational capital and robust cooperative networks. The process achieves significant decision-making capacity, although not without risks of dominance by the most influential actors. In Tor Bella Monaca, by contrast, participation fits within a more incremental model: procedures are strongly formalized, yet social cohesion remains fragile. Nevertheless, the process has fostered trust-building and facilitation dynamics despite persistent tensions and fragmentation within the local associative environment.
The findings suggest that the effectiveness of these participatory mechanisms depends not only on the formalization of procedures but also on the interplay between political and administrative leadership, social capital, and relational continuity. Effective co-governance, therefore, requires an institutional leadership oriented toward implementation and the cultivation of trust as a core infrastructure for decision-making.
In conclusion, the two cases demonstrate that co-programming can operate as a catalyst for proximity-based welfare and administrative innovation, provided it is supported by cohesive social contexts and cooperative forms of leadership. The proposed analytical model also reveals potential for transferability to other urban settings, contributing to a broader reflection on societal citizenship understood as a collective practice of co-responsibility and co-production of public value.