官僚陷阱:意大利罗姆人和辛提人社会融合政策中的户籍和诱惑主义偏见

IF 1.1 Q2 ANTHROPOLOGY
Stefania Pontrandolfo, Marco Solimene
{"title":"官僚陷阱:意大利罗姆人和辛提人社会融合政策中的户籍和诱惑主义偏见","authors":"Stefania Pontrandolfo, Marco Solimene","doi":"10.3197/np.2023.270203","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article addresses the issue of sedentist bias in development by exploring nuances and contradictions in local social cohesion policies that target the Roma and Sinti population in Italy. European cohesion policies are embedded in a decades-long history of development discourses\n aimed at economically underdeveloped regions within Europe as well as vulnerable social groups. The latter include groups like Roma and Sinti, who, although historically part of the European social fabric, are not always treated as such due to their alleged legacy of nomadism. We address interactions\n and hiccups between the policies for Roma/Sinti implemented by Italian regions and municipalities and the directives for Roma inclusion stipulated by national and EU frameworks. We argue that the translation of these directives meets and intersects with a pre-existing legislative framework\n consisting of regional policies for Roma and Sinti based on soft recognition and mainstream policies that revolve around an administrative milieu that aims at controlling identity and mobility within national borders. We thus reflect on registered residence, an administrative device that is\n used as a selective tool for granting access to citizenship rights, and on its effects on Italy's local social cohesion policies for Roma and Sinti. The implementation of EU and national frameworks for Roma cohesion, which is our main argument, can paradoxically contribute to the exclusion\n and marginalisation of mobile peoples in Italy. This is due to a sedentist framework in which the mechanism of registered residence, a bureaucratic trap for many Roma and Sinti, becomes extremely apparent and prompts a series of more implicit biases in local social policies.","PeriodicalId":19318,"journal":{"name":"Nomadic Peoples","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Bureaucratic Trap: Registered Residence and Sedentist Bias in Italian Social Cohesion Policies for Roma and Sinti\",\"authors\":\"Stefania Pontrandolfo, Marco Solimene\",\"doi\":\"10.3197/np.2023.270203\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article addresses the issue of sedentist bias in development by exploring nuances and contradictions in local social cohesion policies that target the Roma and Sinti population in Italy. European cohesion policies are embedded in a decades-long history of development discourses\\n aimed at economically underdeveloped regions within Europe as well as vulnerable social groups. The latter include groups like Roma and Sinti, who, although historically part of the European social fabric, are not always treated as such due to their alleged legacy of nomadism. We address interactions\\n and hiccups between the policies for Roma/Sinti implemented by Italian regions and municipalities and the directives for Roma inclusion stipulated by national and EU frameworks. We argue that the translation of these directives meets and intersects with a pre-existing legislative framework\\n consisting of regional policies for Roma and Sinti based on soft recognition and mainstream policies that revolve around an administrative milieu that aims at controlling identity and mobility within national borders. We thus reflect on registered residence, an administrative device that is\\n used as a selective tool for granting access to citizenship rights, and on its effects on Italy's local social cohesion policies for Roma and Sinti. The implementation of EU and national frameworks for Roma cohesion, which is our main argument, can paradoxically contribute to the exclusion\\n and marginalisation of mobile peoples in Italy. This is due to a sedentist framework in which the mechanism of registered residence, a bureaucratic trap for many Roma and Sinti, becomes extremely apparent and prompts a series of more implicit biases in local social policies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":19318,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nomadic Peoples\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nomadic Peoples\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3197/np.2023.270203\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANTHROPOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nomadic Peoples","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3197/np.2023.270203","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文通过探讨意大利针对罗姆人和辛提人的地方社会凝聚力政策中的细微差别和矛盾,解决了发展中的煽动主义偏见问题。欧洲的凝聚力政策植根于数十年来针对欧洲经济欠发达地区以及弱势社会群体的发展话语中。后者包括罗姆人和辛提人等群体,尽管他们在历史上是欧洲社会结构的一部分,但由于他们所谓的游牧遗产,他们并不总是受到这样的对待。我们解决了意大利各地区和市政府实施的罗姆人/辛提人政策与国家和欧盟框架规定的罗姆人融入指令之间的互动和问题。我们认为,这些指令的翻译符合并交叉于一个预先存在的立法框架,该框架由基于软承认的罗姆人和辛提人地区政策和围绕旨在控制国家边界内身份和流动的行政环境的主流政策组成。因此,我们反思了户籍这一被用作授予公民权利的选择性工具的行政手段,以及它对意大利当地罗姆人和辛提人社会凝聚力政策的影响。欧盟和国家罗姆人凝聚力框架的实施,这是我们的主要论点,可能会矛盾地导致意大利流动人口的排斥和边缘化。这是由于一个煽动叛乱的框架,在这个框架中,户籍机制——许多罗姆人和辛提人的官僚陷阱——变得极其明显,并在当地社会政策中引发了一系列更为隐性的偏见。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Bureaucratic Trap: Registered Residence and Sedentist Bias in Italian Social Cohesion Policies for Roma and Sinti
This article addresses the issue of sedentist bias in development by exploring nuances and contradictions in local social cohesion policies that target the Roma and Sinti population in Italy. European cohesion policies are embedded in a decades-long history of development discourses aimed at economically underdeveloped regions within Europe as well as vulnerable social groups. The latter include groups like Roma and Sinti, who, although historically part of the European social fabric, are not always treated as such due to their alleged legacy of nomadism. We address interactions and hiccups between the policies for Roma/Sinti implemented by Italian regions and municipalities and the directives for Roma inclusion stipulated by national and EU frameworks. We argue that the translation of these directives meets and intersects with a pre-existing legislative framework consisting of regional policies for Roma and Sinti based on soft recognition and mainstream policies that revolve around an administrative milieu that aims at controlling identity and mobility within national borders. We thus reflect on registered residence, an administrative device that is used as a selective tool for granting access to citizenship rights, and on its effects on Italy's local social cohesion policies for Roma and Sinti. The implementation of EU and national frameworks for Roma cohesion, which is our main argument, can paradoxically contribute to the exclusion and marginalisation of mobile peoples in Italy. This is due to a sedentist framework in which the mechanism of registered residence, a bureaucratic trap for many Roma and Sinti, becomes extremely apparent and prompts a series of more implicit biases in local social policies.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Nomadic Peoples
Nomadic Peoples ANTHROPOLOGY-
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
11.10%
发文量
19
期刊介绍: Nomadic Peoples is an international journal published for the Commission on Nomadic Peoples, International Union of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences. Its primary concerns are the current circumstances of all nomadic peoples around the world and their prospects. Its readership includes all those interested in nomadic peoples—scholars, researchers, planners and project administrators.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信