Dipartimento Innovazione e Società, via Salaria 113,. 00198 Roma. Telefono: 06 4991 8372 – 06 84241159. Fax: 06 840800. E-mail: dies@uniroma1.it.

66 KB – 52 Pages

PAGE – 2 ============
Quaderni di Ricerca del Dipartimento Innovazione e Societ‹, Universit‹ di Roma ÒSapienzaÓ Dipartimento Innovazione e Societ‹, via Salaria 113, 00198 Roma Telefono: 06 4991 8372 Ð 06 84241159 Fax: 06 840800 E-mail: dies@uniroma1.it Consiglio di Dipartimento Amos Andreoni Fabrizio Battistelli Luciano Benadusi Nicola Maria Boccella Leonardo CannavŸ Claudio Cerreti Guglielmo Chiodi Marco CilentoSimona ColariziErnesto dÕAlbergo Domenico De Masi Rita Di Leo Marcello Fedele ( Direttore )Gloria Gabrielli Lia Migale Giulio Moini Giovanni Orsina Massimo PaciAdriana PigaMario Patrono Claudio Pellegrini Simonetta Piccone Stella Tatiana Pipan Fabrizio Pirro Angela Scaringella Adriana Signorelli Antonio Staffa Federico TedeschiniAssunta ViterittiLuciano Zani Comitato ScientiÞcoGuglielmo Chiodi ( Coordinatore )Ernesto dÕAlbergo Gloria Gabrielli Fabrizio Pirro I Quaderni di Ricerca vengono pubblicati per favorire la tempestiva divulgazione, in forma prov-visoria o deÞnitiva, dei risultati delle ricerche nelle aree: societ‹ e storia, istituzioni e politiche pub- bliche, economia, la societ‹ dell’informazione.Il Comitato ScientiÞco decide circa la pubblicazione di lavori nella collana dei Quaderni di Ricerca ,sentito il parere di referees .The aim of the Quaderni di Ricerca (Working Papers) is to disseminate provisional or deÞnitive research on topics such as society and history, public policies and institutions, economic phenomena, and the Ôinformation societyÕ. The publication of the submitted articles, which will be refereed, are subjected to approval by the ScientiÞc Committee. I Quaderni di Ricerca sono depositati come opere a stampa secondo gli obblighi previsti dallÕart. 1 del D.L.L. 31.8.45 n. 660.

PAGE – 4 ============
Copyright © MMVIARACNE EDITRICE S.r.l. www.aracneeditrice.itinfo@aracneeditrice.itRedazione 00173 Roma via Raffaele Garofalo, 133 A/B 06 93781065 telefax 06 72678427ISBN 88Ð548Ð0796Ð6I diritti di traduzione, di memorizzazione elettronica, di riproduzione e di adattamento anche parziale, con qualsiasi mezzo, sono riservati per tutti i Paesi. I edizione: ottobre 2006 Finito di stampare nel mese di ottobre del 2006 dalla tipograÞa ÇBraille Gamma S.r.l.È di Santa RuÞna di Cittaducale (RI) per conto della ÇAracne editrice S.r.l.È di Roma Printed in Italy

PAGE – 5 ============
The Glocal Mayor. The Politics of Rome’s Internat ional and Transnational Agency Ernesto d’Albergo1 ABSTRACT This paper focuses on the questions arising fr om the many international and transnational activities increasingly carried out by Rome’s political, economic and social actors. The research, the results of which are presented here, is pa rt of a comparative analysis on the topic Cities as In- ternational and Transnational Actors . Within this larger work Rome’s international agency was analysed for the period 1994-2005 so as to answer questions about “why” and “how” a city’s inter- national and transnational strategy emerges, and about its specific nature and orientation. The emergence of a single strategy capable of bringing the international activities carried out by the many urban actors in Rome under a common legitimating “umbrella” can be explained by the role played by the city’s political leaders. In the pe riod under observation Rome’s “glocal Mayors” pur- sued political strategies in which international and transnational issues became increasingly im- portant, and for which they also controlled suffici ent institutional and poli tical resources to be able to put them on the political agenda. Rome’s central strategy shifted from a more “e conomic” (pro growth) to a more “political” one (aimed at improving the city’s position in th e global and European order) and later to a more “social” orientation (centred on solidarity, peac e and human rights concerns). Factors explaining such a change are to be found in a variety of in dependent variables, such as the conditions influ- encing the city’s marketing potential and the way these are perceived by urban actors, the nature of urban society within the city (the nature of it s economic interests and of civil society itself and the spread of social values), th e nature of those horizontal and vertical intergovernmental rela- tions that the city government is involved in, the nature of the urban political system, as well as the city’s geo-political position and its international history. Analysis of the relationships between the prevailing strategies and the factors they de pend on has shown that the “politics of policy making” for the city™s international agency clea rly reveals the explanatory factors and the way they are related to each other. 1. INTRODUCTION : A CITY ‘S INTERNATIONAL AND TRANSNATIONAL AGENCY AND THE ROME CASE STUDY As happens in other European cities and in many other urban areas all over the world, the political agenda of Rome™s city council abounds with interna- tional issues and urban policy-making has many objectives that go beyond the confines of the Italian State. The glob alisation of economies and the transna- tionalisation of political power – the greatly changed ability of nation-states to provide society with effective regulation and to control economic flows, as well 1 Università degli studi di Roma «La Sapienza».

PAGE – 6 ============
2 as the emergence of new and still uncertai n regimes of global governance [Held, 2004] – have transformed the role that citi es play in the wider world, along with some of their internal processes. For ex ample, global economic competition be- tween cities and regions has brought iss ues such as economic restructuring and city marketing, as well as new kinds of problems related to social cohesion, onto their political agendas. In order to address these internal issues, cities look for different kinds of resources, which incr easingly come not only from domestic contexts, but also from regional and/or global economic and political arenas. Cities also try to exert pressure on supra-national authorities and international organisations, like the European Union (E U) and the United Nations (U N), in order to reshape the global political order and above all to enhance their role within it. So cities, on the one hand are becoming transnational actors as part of a wider phenomenon of transnationalisati on and global networking which in- cludes political experience and identiti es [Sassen, 2002]. On the other hand, a city’s agency can also be defined as “i nternational”, since it also performs “paradiplomatic” activities in the field of international affairs, an arena where once upon a time state governments alone had a sovereign role 2. Even though trans-border activities are not entirely new for cities, these two roles are essen- tially a change for them when compared to their experience in other periods of history such as pre-modern ones [Sauni er, 2002]. So far a city’s contemporary international and transnational agency has not been the subject of all- encompassing research. Ongoing research within the social and political sci- ences is instead proceeding along parallel paths, mostly deal ing with specific topics, such as: – The nature and role of “global” or “world” cities [Friedmann, 1986; Sas- sen, 1994, 2001; Short and Kim, 1999; Knox, 1995; Fainstein, 2001]; – The nature and role of “entrepreneu rial cities”, dealing with the eco- 2 The two dimensions were both the subjec t of a comparative analysis carried out by the research network C ITTA (2003-2005) of the European Science Foundation (C ITTA stands for Cities as International and Transnational Actors : www.diesonline.it/citta-esf; www.esf.org . Rome was one of ten case studies (also including Amsterdam, Birmingham, Budapest, Madrid, Manchester, Montreal, Paris, Vilnius and Zürich). In the presentation of the comparative results [d’Albergo and Le fèvre, 2006] the distinction between the in- ternational and transnational di mension is not given an interpretative meaning, as all the cities’ activities and strategies beyond national borders are referred to as “international”. The distinction will be illustrated in this paper (see below).

PAGE – 8 ============
4 All these above-mentioned studies analyse individual aspects of city inter- national activity and its changing role in the restructuring of the global (and re- gional) order, but so far a comprehensiv e interpretation of city international and transnational agency is lacking. Th e most important questions concern on one the hand the nature of this agency, and on the other hand two different kinds of impact, that are either external or internal. External impact means the actual capability of cities to counteract, negotiate or steer the processes of eco- nomic globalisation and the transnationalization of political power through their international agency, thus indicating the extent of change in the interna- tional and transnational arenas brought ab out by a city’s actions. Internal im- pact, on the other hand, means the conseq uences within each city’s system of governance of actions aimed at transnational arenas. At a lower explanatory level questions can be asked about the “how” and “why” of city international and transnational agency, such as the na ture of this agency, the reasons why a specific type of activity is developed in a city, and by whom. Assessing the impact of city agency on the regional or global scale is un- derstandably difficult, also because glob alisation and Europeanisation appear in this scheme as variables that both derive from a city’s agency and also influence it at the same time. This would imply re search that is quite different from our research, the results of which are presented here. Moreover, analysing internal impacts would require a very difficult, long-term observation of policy out- comes, such as the possible changes affect ing a city’s position in the global mar- ket place, or the changes in a city’s lead ership brought about by the political use of international and transnational iss ues. Besides, questions about the diver- gence and/or convergence of different cities’ roles as transnational actors can only be addressed through comparative analysis focusing on the type of interna- tional actions and strategies followed by different cities. This paper aims to pre- sent the results of a more limited rese arch into the transnational and interna- tional agency of the city of Rome over th e last 15 years. It also focuses only on the nature of Rome’s international activity, and not on its impact 3 Since Rome is Italy’s capital city, international activity on the part of local 3 The research was carried out over the period 2003-2005 through the analysis of official documents, articles in the mass media, and about tw enty interviews with people engaged in international acti vities, both inside and outs ide the Rome administration, namely mayors, deputy mayors, executives administration managers, members of inter- est group organizations and representatives of civil society groups.

PAGE – 9 ============
5 actors is not new, and in fact has been pa rt of its institutional duties toward the nation state since 1870, however, trans- border agency has taken on new forms and meanings since the early 1990s. Previo us international activities in the course of the XX century, such as big sports and culture events, bilateral and multilateral initiatives, belong to another historical phase, even if some of them – such as the twinning with Paris an d membership of several European and world city associations – are still active today. There a number of reasons for this change, some of them having a local or domestic nature, whereas others are due to the way the city of Rome has reacted to factors affecting its wider politi- cal and economic environment, such as processes of globalisation and European integration. This paper has to a large extent the same interpretative approach taken by the larger comparative research project of which the Rome case study forms a part (see footnote no. 2). The approach is based on dependent and independent variables [d’Albergo and Lefèvre, 2006]: the first of these regard the nature of a city’s transnational and international strategies, which are themselves subjective attempts to reach coherence between the goals, means and underlying values of a set of activities carried out beyond national borders by a city’s actors. Various situations may occur within a city: there may be no strategy or several frag- mented strategies as well as a “prevailin g strategy”, the latter being either “a strategy that aggregates a significant part of the international activities of an ur- ban area, and/or dominates the agenda be cause it is highly visible and is pro- moted by a strong actor or a group of actors”. The role of strong urban leaders, typically mayors, proved to be important in facilitating the emergence of a strategy that clearly prevails over others. Such a strategy may be orientated in different directions. The results of the comparative study of which this research forms part, shows that there may be three kinds of prevailing strategy: firstl y an “economic” one, when the strategy is oriented toward growth and competit iveness; whereas in the second case a strategy is “political” when it is domina ted by concerns related to the position and role of the city within its political environment. This type of prevailing strategy usually aims at changing the rules of the global and/or European order and of multilevel governance systems by achieving a greater role for the city (and more generally for cities) within them. A more limited and less ambitious political strategy goal may be that of obtaining a range of differing resources from supranational institutional. In the th ird case a “social” orientation prevails when the agenda is dominated by issues such as the fight against poverty and social inequality, as well as the fight for sustainable development or that for

PAGE – 10 ============
6 human rights and peace. One of the prevai ling aims of this “solidarity” or “cos- mopolitan” agenda is to change or infl uence the neo-liberal policies followed by transnational regimes [d™Albergo and Lefèvre, 2006]. In the case of Rome, as will be shown below, it is possible to find all three kinds of transnational and international actions, even though the prevailing strategy shifted in the period under obse rvation from an economic one, firstly to a mainly political one, and then to a predominantly social orientation. What does the existence of prevailing strategy depend on? The variables used to ex- plain “why” one particular strategic orientation prevails over others, are based on the model that H. Savitch and P. Ka ntor [2002] developed in their compara- tive study of urban development in the context of globalisation, and which in- cluded questions about why and how behaviour and development policies in western cities converge or diverge. Assuming that cities do have strategies to deal with global economic forces, they analysed four independent variables market conditions, intergovernmental support, fipopular controlfl systems and local culture), which form a “bargaining situation” between cities (namely po- litical elites) and major economic actors. In the end, they found that there is significant variation in city strategies and that global restructuring has not ho- mogenized local politics and policies. The comparative research that this case study forms part of has tried to an- swer the questions of how and why cities have international and transnational strategies by selecting some of the above mentioned explanatory variables, par- tially adapting and modifying them and by adding others. The resulting set of independent variables consist of: the city’s market conditions, its urban society, the nature of intergovernmental relations, the kind of political system, the geo- political dimension and the city’s international history. Consequently, this re- search into Rome’s international and tr ansnational agency focuses on the rela- tionships between the prevailing strate gies and the various factors on which they depend. In this paper questions such as “What is the City’s strategy, given the pres- ence of different international activiti es?fl or fi How and why do one or more strategies prevail over the others?” are answered in paragraph 2. This is done through an analysis of the political and institutional conditions that make it possible for international strategies to emerge and, above all, of the role of Rome’s “glocal Mayor”, which provided them with cognitive (visions) and po- litical (legitimacy) resources. Paragraph 3 concentrates on the econom ic orientation of the city™s interna- tional strategy, namely the economic promotion of the urban system and the

PAGE – 11 ============
7 search for financial resources in global markets. It illustrates why these transna- tional activities, although important, ca nnot be considered to have been either prevalent for a long period of time, or to be among the most innovative of those pursued within the city. Paragraph 4 deals with political and social orientations, focusing on their specific features and on the factors that, so far, have given in- creasing importance to what can be called a Europeanist and non-materialist agenda. Finally, some conclusions are dr awn concerning the overall nature of Rome’s international agency, the analog ies, differences and interplay between the different orientations of the strate gy and the ways the above mentioned in- ternal and external variables influence its social and political construction. 2. THE PLURALITY OF ROME ‘S INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES AND THE SHIFTING “UM-BRELLA” STRATEGY Within the city and the wider regional/metropolitan area of Rome many local government actors engage in international activities, each of them using different means and being motivated by differing objectives. Besides this, eco- nomic actors and those within civil society also carry out their own interna- tional activity as well. The differentiated setting for such activities is a result the multifaceted nature of local society and of the administrative polyarchy in the metropolitan area, within which there ar e four different levels of governing bodies: the Lazio Region, the Province of Rome, and then the Rome City Coun- cil, followed by its 19 sub-municipalities that were the result of the City’s own policy of decentralization. Although the system is fragmented and multilayered, so far the international activities carried out by these actors have been neither competitive nor, in fact, coordinated, but rather coexistent and parallel even though they differ substantially as far as their weight and importance on the urban political agenda are concerned. The territorial, demographic, economic , political and administrative domi- nance of the core city 4 explains why there can be no real competition between the international activities carried out at this level and those of other actors in 4 Demographically the central city of Rome accounts for the half of the Region™s and 68.8% of the Province™s po pulation, and it also represents 63% of regional and 81% of provincial GPD , 80.5% of provincial em ployees, 67.3% of firms, among which the most innovative. This data comes from Provincia di Roma [2004] and C ENSIS [2006]. The cen- tral city authority (Comune di Roma) also co ntrols the strongest governing power within the existing tiers of sub-national government.

66 KB – 52 Pages