Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Territorial Politics of Regionalism in Italy Between Integration and Disintegration

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Territorial Politics and Secession

Part of the book series: Federalism and Internal Conflicts ((FEINCO))

Abstract

The chapter analyses Italian regionalism as an example of the trend of decentralised States, where the strive for more autonomy of territorial institutions leads to constant instability. It delves into the foundations of the regional system, its implementation and consolidation, complementing the constitutional analysis with contextual comparative and political references. It assesses when and why claims of differentiation among Regions arose, as well as how they were channelled through legal and constitutional means: first, through principles and rights supposedly aimed exclusively for citizens/residents of the corresponding Region; then, through regional laws calling for referenda on independence or higher autonomy. The current phase is characterised by the pursuit of “differentiated regionalism” and a novel debate, conscious of the North/South divide, has started concerning the scope of national cohesion and solidarity, as well as basic levels of protection of civil and social rights throughout the country.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Pedrazza Gorlero (1979) and Cerrina Feroni and Tarli Barbieri (2016).

  2. 2.

    In fact, through constitutional laws n. 2, 3, 4 and 5/1948, the statutes of autonomy of Sicily, Sardinia, Valle d’Aosta and Trentino Alto Adige were adopted. The statute of autonomy of Friuli Venezia Giulia dates back to 1963 instead, for historical and political reasons.

  3. 3.

    See Berti (1975) and Bifulco (2006a).

  4. 4.

    See Mortati (1947); Luciani (1997); Modugno (2014); Carnevale (2015); and Ronchetti (2018).

  5. 5.

    A short terminological clarification: under Italian constitutional law, the word “Parliament” is only applicable to the national legislature, as the Constitutional Court confirmed (see judgments n. 106/2002 and n. 306/2002). The English translation of the Italian term would read “legislative assembly” or “legislative council”. For the sake of simplification, this chapter will employ the expression “regional parliament”.

  6. 6.

    On the link between the concept of “type of State” and “form of State”, see Pegoraro and Rinella (2017: 282–334).

  7. 7.

    See Mangiameli (2012) and D’Atena (2014).

  8. 8.

    See Bassanini (1970) and Rotelli (1973).

  9. 9.

    See Caravita (2002); Mangiameli (2002); and Rozo Acuña (2003).

  10. 10.

    See Crisafulli (1963); Bartole and Vandelli (1980); and Bartole et al. (1988).

  11. 11.

    See Cuocolo (1997) and Costanzo et al. (1998).

  12. 12.

    At the general elections of 1983, Liga Veneta obtained two seats, one at the Chamber of deputies and one at the Senate; in 1987, Lega Lombarda got its secretary elected, Umberto Bossi, who would then become the leader of the Northern League.

  13. 13.

    On the tension towards federalism, see Baldini and Baldi (2014).

  14. 14.

    The application of all preferential clauses, which would have led to the recognition of higher autonomy for ordinary Regions than special ones, was extended to the latter (Art. 10, constitutional amendment law n. 3/2001).

  15. 15.

    Previous attempts to regulate this option more in depth failed, like the bill proposed during Prodi’s Government, on which see Bin (2008). The budgetary law for 2014 (law n. 147/2013), Art. 1, para. 571, established a deadline of 60 days for the national Government to start engaging in the request by the corresponding Region, which must be addressed to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Regional Affairs. See Mezzanotte (2014) and on former regional initiatives, Violini (2007).

  16. 16.

    For instance, through law n. 131/2003, dedicated to the adaptation of the legal system to the 2001 amendment, or law n. 11/2005, concerning the participation to European decision-making processes. See Anzon (2008) and Mangiameli (2011).

  17. 17.

    See at least Olivetti (2002); Ferrara (2001); Carli et al. (2006); Bifulco (2006b) and D’Alessandro (2008).

  18. 18.

    On this point, see judgments n. 2/2004, n. 371/2004 and n. 12/2006 of the Italian Constitutional Court and among the scholarly analyses, Fusaro (2001); Zorzi Giustiniani (2003); and Ragone (2007).

  19. 19.

    See Catelani and Cheli (2008) and, from a comparative perspective, Gavara de Cara (2010).

  20. 20.

    See judgments n. 40/1972, n. 829/1988 and n. 921/1988 of the Constitutional Court.

  21. 21.

    See judgment n. 304/2002 of the Constitutional Court.

  22. 22.

    See judgment n. 196/2003 of the Constitutional Court.

  23. 23.

    See, in addition to judgment n. 2/2004, also n. 372/2004, n. 378/2004 and n. 379/2004 of the Constitutional Court.

  24. 24.

    See Azzariti (2006) and Pinelli (2006).

  25. 25.

    See Di Giacomo Russo and Tarzia (2016); Marini and Scaccia (2016); Morelli and Moschella (2016); Lucarelli and Zammartino (2016) and Cavino et al. (2017).

  26. 26.

    See Belletti (2012) and Gardini (2015).

  27. 27.

    According to the Eurostat report on the GDP pro capite in European Regions published in 2015, when the autonomist process (re)started (https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/), there were no Italian regions in the first 20 slots (nor in the last 20) and this was the statistics: autonomous province of Bolzano (142%); Lombardy (134%), Valle d’Aosta (132%), autonomous province of Trento (127%); Emilia-Romagna (120%); Lazio (118%); Liguria (112%); Veneto (111%); Friuli Venezia Giulia and Tuscany (107%); Piedmont (106%); Marche (93%) and Umbria (90%). Then, among the poorest regions, after Calabria, Sicily and Puglia (61%), there were Campania (63%), Basilicata and Sardinia (69%), Molise (70%) and Abruzzo (85%). These data confirm the North/South divide which has been a constant element in Italian politics and development. On the effects of the crisis in this respect, see Lagravinese (2015).

  28. 28.

    The leader of this movement is a former member of the Northern League (Gianluca Busato, expelled from the party in 1997).

  29. 29.

    A translation into English can be found here: https://www.cortecostituzionale.it/documenti/download/doc/recent_judgments/S118_2015_en.pdf. See Tega (2015); Conte (2015) and Pastore (2019a).

  30. 30.

    The legal reasoning concerning questions 2 and 3 on taxes was construed on the following steps: the statute of autonomy is the source that regulates regional referenda according to Art. 123 of the Constitution; Art. 26 and Art. 27 of the statute of autonomy of Veneto actually regulate them, explicitly excluding the possibility of holding referenda concerning taxes and budgetary issues. Therefore, the call for these questions violated the statute itself. Additionally, these questions were also contrary to Art. 119 of the Constitution, that regulates financial autonomy of revenue and expenditure, balanced with the principle of coordination of public finance, equalisation and solidarity among different territories. On question 4, the Court considered that the request to eliminate all constraints of destination for financial resources (for instance, economic development, solidarity, cohesion) would infringe upon Art. 119 of the Constitution and Articles 26 and 27 of the statute of autonomy.

  31. 31.

    The other Articles of the Constitution allegedly violated were 114, 138 and 139. Concerning Art. 5 as a limit to the amending power, see Modugno (2014), on the interpretation of the scope of the principle of unity, and Pistorio (2015).

  32. 32.

    On this point, see judgments n. 106/2002; n. 306/2002 and n. 365/2007 of the Constitutional Court.

  33. 33.

    The Court stated, in fact, that “The unity of the Republic is an aspect of constitutional law that is so essential as to be protected even against the power of constitutional amendment” (see judgment n. 1146/1988 on the doctrine of the limits to the amending power beyond the explicit limit of the “republican form of state”, Art. 139).

  34. 34.

    That is why the referenda actually held in 2017 were consultative and represented an optional addition to the procedure. See Lauro (2017).

  35. 35.

    In this respect, great relevance is given to the text of the law, because the Court refers to the wording of the question that repeats verbatim the expression used in Art. 116.3 of the Constitution. The Court stated that in spite of the fact that it was “the case that the question does not specify the areas in which the regional autonomy regarding which the electorate is to be consulted is planned to be expanded”. This position shall be contrasted with previous case law, for instance, with judgments n. 470/1992 and n. 496/2000.

  36. 36.

    See judgments n. 256/1989, n. 470/1992 and n. 496/2000 of the Constitutional Court. For such choices the electorate cannot be split and the decision has to be taken by its entirety.

  37. 37.

    See Arban (2018); Violini and Dainotti (2017) and Troilo (2019).

  38. 38.

    Regional authorities claimed it was 54 billion per year. In case of a positive vote in the referendum, they would aim to keep at least half of it.

  39. 39.

    See Document XVII-bis, n. 13, passed on the 6th of February 2018, on the implementation of Art. 116.3 of the Constitution with respect to the recent initiatives of Lombardy, Veneto and Emilia-Romagna.

  40. 40.

    Updated information can be found here: https://www.camera.it/temiap/documentazione/temi/pdf/1104705.pdf.

  41. 41.

    On which, see at least the recent volumes by Pastore (2019b) and Villone (2019). The issue of homogeneity is addressed by Rolla (2019). Also, financial aspects and the impact of specific sectors are analysed by the contributions included in Lucarelli and Patroni Griffi (2019).

  42. 42.

    From a comparative perspective, see Carboni (2019) and Blanco Valdés and Ferraro (2018).

References

  • Anzon, A. (2008). I poteri delle Regioni. Lo sviluppo attuale del secondo regionalismo. Turin: Giappichelli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arban, E. (2018). The Referenda for More Autonomy in Veneto and Lombardia: Constitutional and Comparative Perspectives. Perspectives on Federalism, 10(1), 242–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azzariti, G. (2006). Dopo il referendum del 25–26 giugno: le prospettive del Titolo V. Diritto pubblico, 12(2), 585–606.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldini, G., & Baldi, B. (2014). Decentralization in Italy and the Troubles of Federalization. Regional and Federal Studies, 24(1), 87–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartole, S., & Vandelli, L. (Eds.). (1980). Le Regioni nella giurisprudenza. Corte Costituzionale, giurisdizione ordinaria, giurisdizione speciale. Bologna: il Mulino.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartole, S., et al. (Eds.). (1988). Regioni e Corte costituzionale: l’esperienza degli ultimi 15 anni. Milan: FrancoAngeli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bassanini, F. (1970). L’attuazione delle Regioni. Firenze: Nuova Italia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belletti, M. (2012). Percorsi di ricentralizzazione del regionalismo italiano nella giurisprudenza costituzionale. Tra tutela di valori fondamentali, esigenze strategiche e di coordinamento della finanza pubblica. Roma: Aracne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berti, G. (1975). Art. 5. In G. Branca (Dir.), Commentario della Costituzione. Principi fondamentali, Art. 1–12 Costituzione (pp. 277–295). Bologna: Zanichelli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bifulco, R. (2006a). Art. 5. In Id. et al. (Ed.), Commentario alla Costituzione. Turin: UTET.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bifulco, R. (Ed.). (2006b). Gli statuti di seconda generazione. Turin: Giappichelli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bin, R. (2008). “Regionalismo differenziato” e utilizzazione dell’art. 116, terzo comma, Cost. Alcune tesi per aprire il dibattito. Istituzioni del federalismo, 29(1), 9–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanco Valdés, R. L., & Ferraro, L. (Eds.). (2018). Europa, federalismo, diversità, asimmetrie. Rassegna di Diritto Pubblico Europeo, (special issue), 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cammelli, M. (2014). Regioni e regionalismo 1948–2013. Naples: Editoriale scientifica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caravita, B. (2002). La Costituzione dopo la riforma del titolo V. Stato, Regioni e autonomie fra Repubblica e Unione europea. Turin: Giappichelli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carboni, G. G. (2019). Il regionalismo identitario: recenti tendenze dello Stato regionale in Spagna, Italia e Regno Unito. Padua: CEDAM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carli, M., et al. (Eds.). (2006). I nuovi statuti delle regioni ordinarie. Problemi e prospettive. Bologna: il Mulino.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carnevale, P. (2015). Unità della Repubblica ed unità del diritto oggettivo. Notazioni introduttive sulla Costituzione come fattore unitario nelle dinamiche della produzione normativa. federalismi.it, 1, 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Catelani, E., & Cheli, E. (Eds.). (2008). I principi negli statuti regionali. Bologna: il Mulino.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavino, M., et al. (2017). La riforma respinta (2014–2016): riflessioni sul D.D.L. costituzionale Renzi-Boschi. Bologna: il Mulino.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cerrina Feroni, G., & Tarli Barbieri, G. (Eds.). (2016). Le Regioni dalla Costituente al nuovo Senato della Repubblica. Naples: ESI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conte, F. (2015). I referendum del Veneto per l’autonomia (e l’indipendenza). Non c’è due senza tre. Anche se…. Forum di Quaderni Costituzionali. http://www.forumcostituzionale.it/. Accessed 20 December 2020.

  • Costanzo, P., et al. (Eds.). (1998). La Commissione bicamerale per le riforme costituzionali. I progetti, i lavori, i testi approvati. Padua: CEDAM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crisafulli, V. (1963). Le Regioni davanti alla Corte costituzionale. Milan: Giuffrè.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuocolo, F. (1997). Bicamerale: atto primo. Il progetto di revisione costituzionale. Milan: Giuffrè.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Alessandro, G. (2008). I nuovi statuti delle regioni ordinarie. Padua: CEDAM.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Alimonte, R. (2019). How the Populists Won in Italy. Journal of Democracy, 30(1), 114–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Atena, A. (2014). Between Spain and Germany: The Historical Models of Italian Regionalism. In S. Mangiameli (Ed.), Italian Regionalism: Between Unitary Traditions and Federal Processes (pp. 67–80). Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Giacomo Russo, B., & Tarzia, A. (Eds.). (2016). Contenuti della riforma costituzionale: luci ed ombre della revisione costituzionale Renzi-Boschi. Naples: Editoriale scientifica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrara, A. (Ed.). (2001). Verso una fase costituente delle Regioni? Milan: Giuffrè.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fusaro, C. (2001). La forma di governo regionale. In T. Groppi & M. Olivetti (Eds.), La Repubblica delle autonomie. Regioni ed enti locali nel nuovo titolo V. Turin: Giappichelli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardini, G. (2015). Crisi e nuove forme di governo territoriale. Istituzioni del federalismo, 3, 533–567.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gavara de Cara, J. C. (Ed.). (2010). Los derechos como principios objetivos en los Estados compuestos. Barcelona: Bosch.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guerra, M. C. (2019). Autonomia regionale differenziata: verso la «secessione dei ricchi»? Le Regioni, 47(2), 413–444.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lagravinese, R. (2015). Economic Crisis and Rising Gaps North–South: Evidence from the Italian Regions. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 8(2), 331–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lauro, A. (2017). Tamquam non essent: riflessioni a margine dei referendum lombardo-veneti del 22 ottobre 2017. Forum di Quaderni Costituzionali. http://www.forumcostituzionale.it/. Accessed 20 December 2020.

  • Louvin, R. (Ed.). (2019). Autonomie(s) en mouvement: l’evoluzione delle autonomie regionali speciali. Naples: ESI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucarelli, A., & Patroni Griffi, A. (Eds.). (2019). Regionalismo differenziato o trasformazione della forma di Stato? Diritto pubblico europeo – Rassegna on line.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucarelli, A., & Zammartino, F. (Eds.). (2016). La riforma costituzionale Renzi-Boschi: quali scenari? Turin: Giappichelli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luciani, M. (1997). Unità nazionale e principio autonomistico alle origini della Costituzione. In C. Franceschini et al. (Eds.), Le idee costituzionali della Resistenza. Roma: Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mangiameli, S. (2002). La riforma del regionalismo italiano. Turin: Giappichelli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mangiameli, S. (2011). Letture sul regionalismo italiano. Il titolo V tra attuazione e riforma della riforma. Turin: Giappichelli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mangiameli, S. (Ed.). (2012). Il regionalismo italiano tra tradizioni unitarie e processi di federalismo: contributo allo studio della crisi della forma di Stato in Italia. Milan: Giuffrè.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mangiameli, S. (2014). The Regions and the Reforms: Issues Resolved and Problems Pending. In Id. (Ed.), Italian Regionalism: Between Unitary Traditions and Federal Processes (pp. 1–34). Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marini, F. S., & Scaccia, G. (Eds.). (2016). Commentario alla riforma costituzionale del 2016. Naples: ESI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mezzanotte, M. (2014). La legge di stabilità 2014 e l’art. 116, comma 3, Cost. Forum di Quaderni costituzionali. http://www.forumcostituzionale.it/. Accessed 20 December 2020.

  • Modugno, F. (2014). Unità e indivisibilità della Repubblica come principio. In P. Bianchi & C. Latini (Eds.), Costruire l’Italia. Dimensione storica e percorsi giuridici del principio di unità. Naples: ESI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morelli, A. (2018). Le autonomie della Repubblica: c’è un ordine nel caos? dirittiregionali.it, 2, 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morelli, A., & Moschella, G. (Eds.). (2016). Forma di governo, bicameralismo e sistema delle autonomie nella riforma costituzionale. Naples: Editoriale scientifica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mortati, C. (1947). La Regione nell’ordinamento costituzionale italiano. Studium, 43(10), 331–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olivetti, M. (2002). Nuovi statuti e forma di governo delle Regioni: verso le Costituzioni regionali? Bologna: il Mulino.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palermo, F. (2018). Lo stato delle asimmetrie regionali in chiave comparata. Miti, realtà e qualche chiave di lettura. In R. L. Blanco Valdés & L. Ferraro (Eds.), Europa, federalismo, diversità, asimmetrie. Rassegna di Diritto Pubblico Europeo (Vol. 2, pp. 291–316).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pallante, F. (2019). Nel merito del regionalismo differenziato: quali «ulteriori forme e condizioni particolari di autonomia» per Veneto, Lombardia ed Emilia Romagna? federalismi.it, 6, 1–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pastore, F. (2019a). Brevi considerazioni su unità e indivisibilità della Repubblica italiana. Dirittifondamentali.it, 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pastore, F. (Ed.). (2019b). Il regionalismo differenziato. Padua: CEDAM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedrazza Gorlero, M. (1979). Regioni storiche e regionalismo politico nelle scelte dell’Assemblea costituente. Padua: CEDAM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pegoraro, L., & Rinella, A. (2017). Sistemi costituzionali comparati. Turin: Giappichelli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinelli, C. (2006). The 1948 Italian Constitution and the 2006 Referendum: Food for Thought. European Constitutional Law Review, 2(3), 329–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pistorio, G. (2015). Unità ed indivisibilità nella giurisprudenza costituzionale. federalismi.it, 1, 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ragone, S. (2007). Gli statuti regionali tra contenuti necessari e contenuti eventuali (con particolare riguardo alle problematiche della definizione della forma di governo e delle norme programmatiche). In E. Rossi (Ed.), Le fonti del diritto nei nuovi statuti regionali (pp. 63–99). Padua: CEDAM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ragone, S. (2013). “Sustainable Differentiation”: The 21st Century Challenge to Decentralization (a Comparative Study of Italy and Spain, with Special Attention to Constitutional Case Law). In A. López Basaguren & L. Escajedo (Eds.), The Ways of Federalism in Western Countries and the Horizons of Territorial Autonomy in Spain (pp. 191–199). Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rolla, G. (2019). L’evoluzione dello Stato regionale in Italia: tra crisi del regionalismo omogeneo e aspirazioni a un’autonomia asimmetrica dei territori. Le Regioni, 47(1), 141–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ronchetti, L. (2014). The Judicial Construction of Italian Regionalism. In S. Mangiameli (Ed.), Italian Regionalism: Between Unitary Traditions and Federal Processes (pp. 379–404). Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ronchetti, L. (2018). L’autonomia e le sue esigenze. Milan: Giuffrè.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rotelli, E. (Ed.). (1973). Dal regionalismo alla regione. Bologna: il Mulino.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rozo Acuña, E. (Ed.). (2003). Lo Stato e le autonomie. Le Regioni nel nuovo titolo V della Costituzione: l’esperienza italiana a confronto con altri paesi. Turin: Giappichelli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Serges, G. (2015). Autodeterminazione, diritto a decidere, indipendenza, sovranità (notazioni a margine della Legge regionale del Veneto, n. 16 del 2014). federalismi.it, 1, 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tega, D. (2015). Venice Is Not Barcelona: A Less Aggressive Regional Question Gets a More Nuanced Constitutional Answer. Iconnectblog. http://www.iconnectblog.com/. Accessed 20 December 2020.

  • Toniatti, R. (2017). L’autonomia regionale ponderata: aspettative ed incognite di un incremento delle asimmetrie quale possibile premessa per una nuova stagione del regionalismo italiano. Le Regioni, 45(4), 635–666.

    Google Scholar 

  • Troilo, S. (2019). Patto costituente e referendum consultivo regionale nell’ordinamento italiano. Revista General de Derecho Constitucional, 29, 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Villone, M. (2019). Italia, divisa e diseguale: regionalismo differenziato o secessione occulta? Naples: Editoriale scientifica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Violini, L. (2007). Le proposte di attuazione dell’art. 116, III comma. Le Regioni, 35(2), 199–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Violini, L., & Dainotti, L. (2017). I referendum del 22 ottobre: una nuova tappa del percorso regionale verso un incremento dell’autonomia. Le Regioni, 45(4), 711–726.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zorzi Giustiniani, A. (2003). Potestà statutaria e forma di governo regionale dopo la riforma del titolo V della Costituzione. Studi parlamentari e di politica costituzionale, 140–141, 45–66.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy

    Sabrina Ragone

Authors
  1. Sabrina Ragone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sabrina Ragone .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Sofia ‘St. Kliment Ohridski’, Sofia, Bulgaria

    Martin Belov

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Ragone, S. (2021). Territorial Politics of Regionalism in Italy Between Integration and Disintegration. In: Belov, M. (eds) Territorial Politics and Secession. Federalism and Internal Conflicts. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64402-4_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation