• Gaja MaestriEmail author
Part of the Palgrave Studies in European Political Sociology book series (PSEPS)


The conclusion summarises the main argument of the book: the persistence of institutional camps is linked to the contentious politics between state and non-state actors involved in their governance. This is in turn influenced by the incorporation of civil society through public partnerships and by the camp legal ambiguity. To conclude, I propose a series of general reflections that speak to a variety of readers. For students of camps, the book illustrates how these are contentious fields of evolving power relations that produce different types of persistent temporariness. For those interested in social and policy change, the research sheds light on the ways in which institutional stability is not an inertial process but the product of intricate conflicting relations. Moreover, exogenous shocks are not the only source of change but also the internal characteristics of an institution—such as ambiguity—can influence gradual change and political mobilisations. For urban scholars, the last chapter primarily shows how the urban is not only a space of marginalisation but also of politicisation.


  1. Agamben, Giorgio. 1998. Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Agier, Michel. 2011. Managing the Undesirables: Refugee Camps and Humanitarian Government. Malden: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  3. Maestri, Gaja. 2017. “The Contentious Sovereignties of the Camp: Political Contention Among State and Non-state Actors in Italian Roma Camps.” Political Geography 60: 213–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Mahoney, James, and Kathleen Thelen, eds. 2010. Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency, and Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. McAdam, Dough, Sidney Tarrow, and Charles Tilly. 2001. Dynamics of Contention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Picker, Giovanni, and Silvia Pasquetti. 2015. “Durable Camps: The State, the Urban, the Everyday.” City: Analysis of Urban Trends, Culture, Theory, Policy, Action 19 (5): 681–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Streeck, Wolfgang, and Kathleen Thelen, eds. 2005. Beyond Continuity: Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Tammaru, Tiit, Szymon Marcińczak, Marteen van Ham, and Sako Musterd, eds. 2016. Socio-Economic Segregation in European Capital Cities. East Meets West. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Wacquant, Loïc. 2008. Urban Outcasts: A Comparative Sociology of Advanced Marginality. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  10. Wilson, William Julius. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Media, Communication and SociologyUniversity of LeicesterLeicesterUK

Personalised recommendations