Inside campi nomadi: The Italian Approach to the Global Shanty Town Development

  • Riccardo Armillei
Part of the Mapping Global Racisms book series (MGR)


The development of urban slum areas is a global phenomenon and one of the major issues of the twenty-first century. More than half (54 percent) of the world’s population lives in urban areas, and this is a figure that it is expected to grow larger by 2030. The Romani people make up Europe’s largest ethnic minority (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights [FRA], Fundamental rights report 2017. Retrieved from, 2017a). They have been subjected to social exclusion and marginalisation for centuries and today many of them live in informal settlements or unauthorised housing. People living in such conditions are also under the constant threat of forced eviction (Council of Europe [CoE], Stop evictions of Roma and Travellers. Retrieved from, 2016b). The Romanies in Italy represent a very small minority group. According to the most recent figures, between 120,000 and 180,000 Romani are living in Italy. This corresponds to 0.25 percent of the national population. It is also estimated that 28,000 of them live in emergency housing conditions. This chapter will define the field of research, the theoretical framework, the object of study and the significance of this book.


  1. Agamben, G. (1998). Homo Sacer: Sovereign power and bare life (trans: Heller-Roazen, D.). Stanford: Stanford University Press. (Original work published 1995).Google Scholar
  2. Allievi, S. (2010). Immigration and cultural pluralism in Italy: Multiculturalism as a missing model. Italian Culture, 28(2), 85–103. Scholar
  3. Amnesty International. (2012a). Italy: Briefing to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination 80th session February 2012. Retrieved from /bodies/cerd/docs/ngos /AI_Italy_CERD80.pdf
  4. Amnesty International, Associazione 21 Luglio, & European Roma Rights Centre (2016). Italy: The national strategy for Roma Inclusion: A short-lived hope for Roma in Italy. Retrieved from
  5. Anheier, H. K., & Salamon, L. M. (2006). The nonprofit sector in comparative perspective. In W. W. Powel & R. Steinberg (Eds.), The non-profit sector. A research handbook (pp. 89–116). New Haven/London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Arendt, H. (1962). The origins of totalitarianism. Cleveland/New York: Meridian Books.Google Scholar
  7. Armillei, R. (2014). Neither included, nor excluded: The paradox of government approaches towards the Romanies in Italy. Citizenship and Globalisation Research Paper Series, 5(3), 1–22.Google Scholar
  8. Armillei, R. (2016). Reflections on Italy’s contemporary approaches to cultural diversity: The exclusion of the ‘Other’ from a supposed notion of ‘Italianness’. Australia New Zealand Journal of European Studies, 8(2), 34–48.Google Scholar
  9. Armillei, R. (2017a). The ‘Piano Nomadi’ and its pyramidal governance: The hidden mechanism underlying the ‘camps system’ in Rome. Romani Studies, 27(1), 47–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Armillei, R. (2017b). The Romani ‘camp-dwellers’ in Rome: Between state control and ‘collective-identity closure’. In C. Agius & D. Keep (Eds.), Identity making, displacement and rupture: Performing discourses of belonging, being and place (pp. 107–122). Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Asséo, H. (1989). Pour une histoire des peuples-Résistances [For a history of resistance-peoples]. In P. Williams (Ed.), Tsiganes: identité, évolution (pp. 121–127). Paris: Syros.Google Scholar
  12. Associazione 21 Luglio. (2013). Campi Nomadi s.p.a. [Nomad Camps Ltd.]. Retrieved from
  13. Associazione 21 Luglio. (2016). Rapporto annuale 2016 [Annual report 2016]. Retrieved from
  14. Associazione 21 Luglio, Associazione per gli Studi Giuridici sull’Immigrazione, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, & Open Society Justice. (2012). Italy: Leave ‘Nomad Emergency’ in the past. Retrieved from
  15. Azadé, A. (2016). Life in the new shanty town taking root on Paris’s abandoned railway. Retrieved from
  16. Barbetta, G. P. (2000). Italy’s third sector on consolidation course. German Policy Studies, 1(2), 136–160.Google Scholar
  17. Barbetta, G. P., Cima, S., & Zamaro, N. (2003). Le istituzioni nonprofit in Italia: Dimensioni organizzative, economiche e sociali [Not-for-profit institutions in Italy: Organisational, social and economic dimensions]. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  18. Barry, A. (2006). Technological zones. European Journal of Social Theory, 9(2), 239–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bartlett, W., Benini, R., & Gordon, C. (2011). Measures to promote the situation of Roma EU citizens in the European Union. Brussels: European Union. Retrieved from
  20. Bauman, Z. (2007). Consuming life. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  21. Bellucci, P. (2007). Rom e Sinti in Italia: Profili storici e culturali [Roma and Sinti in Italy: Historical and cultural profiles]. Urbino: Università degli Studi di Urbino.Google Scholar
  22. Benedetto, I. (2011). Le minoranze Rom e Sinte: Alla ricerca di uno status giuridico [Roma and Sinti minorities: The pursuit of legal status]. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from
  23. Benvenuti, S., & Martini, S. (2017). La crisi del welfare pubblico e il “nuovo” Terzo settore [The crisis of the welfare state and on the ‘new’ Third Sector]. Retrieved from
  24. Berman, J. (2013). Utility of a conceptual framework within doctoral study: A researcher’s reflections. Issues in Educational Research, 23(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
  25. Bonifazi, C., Heins, F., Strozza, S., & Vitiello, M. (2009, March). Italy: The Italian transition from an emigration to immigration country. Idea working papers. Retrieved from
  26. Bontempelli, S. (2006). La tribù dei gagè: Comunità Rom e politiche di accoglienza a Pisa (1988–2005) [The tribe of the Gadje people: Romani communities and integration policies in Pisa (1988–2005)]. International Journal of Migration Studies, 43(164), 947–967.Google Scholar
  27. Bontempelli, S. (2012). Roma policies in Italy: Good practices for housing. Retrieved from
  28. Boose, J. W. (2012). Democratization and civil society: Libya, Tunisia and the Arab Spring. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 2(4), 310–315.Google Scholar
  29. Bravi, L., & Sigona, N. (2006). Educazione e rieducazione nei campi per ‘nomadi’: Una storia [Education and re-education inside camps for ‘nomads’: An overview]. International Journal of Migration Studies, 43(164), 857–874.Google Scholar
  30. Brunello, P. (Ed.). (1996). L’urbanistica del disprezzo. Campi rom e società Italiana [The urban scorn. Romani camp and Italian society]. Roma: Manifestolibri.Google Scholar
  31. Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Calabrò, A. R. (2008). Zingari: Storia di un’emergenza annunciata [Gypsies: The history of an announced emergency]. Naples: Liguori.Google Scholar
  33. Cemlyn, S., & Briskman, L. (2002). Social (dys)welfare within a hostile state. Social Work Education, 21(1), 49–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Clough Marinaro, I. (2003). Integration or marginalization? The failures of social policy for the Roma in Rome. Modern Italy, 8(2), 203–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Clough Marinaro, I. (2009). Between surveillance and exile: Biopolitics and the Roma in Italy. Bulletin of Italian Politics, 1(2), 265–287.Google Scholar
  36. Clough Marinaro, I. (2014). Rome’s ‘legal’ camps for Roma: The construction of new spaces of informality. Journal of Modern Italian Studies, 19(5), 541–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Clough Marinaro, I. (2015). The rise of Italy’s neo-Ghettos. Journal of Urban History, 41(3), 368–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Clough Marinaro, I., & Daniele, U. (2011). Roma and humanitarianism in the Eternal City. Journal of Modern Italian Studies, 16(5), 621–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Commissione straordinaria per la tutela e la promozione dei diritti umani. (2011). Rapporto conclusivo dell’indagine sulla condizione di Rom, Sinti e Camminanti in Italia [Final report of the survey on the status of Roma, Sinti and Travellers in Italy]. Retrieved from
  40. Comune di Roma. (2017). Campi rom: al lavoro per superamento villaggi Monachina e La Barbuta [Romani camps: Work is underway to close the Monachina and La Barbuta villages]. Retrieved from
  41. Conclave, M. (2017). La vera valutazione dell’ impresa sociale [The real evaluation of the social enterprise]. Retrieved from
  42. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  43. Daniele, U. (2010). Zingari di carta: Un percorso nella presa di parola rom ai tempi dell’emergenza [Paper Gypsies: A route towards the empowerment of Romanies during the emergency]. Zapruder, 22, 56–72.Google Scholar
  44. Daniele, U. (2011a). ‘Nomads’ in the eternal city. Géocarrefour, 86(1), 15–24. Retrieved from
  45. Daniele, U. (2011b). Sono del campo e vengo dall’India: Etnografia di una collettività rom ridislocata [I live in a camp and I come from India: Ethnography of a re-displaced Romani community]. Rome: Meti Edizioni.Google Scholar
  46. Délégation Interministérielle à l’hébergement et à l’accès au lodgement. (2011). French government strategy for Roma integration within the framework of the communication from the Commission of 5 April 2011 and the Council conclusions of 19 May 2011.
  47. Di Maggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1991). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. In W. W. Powell & P. J. Di Maggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 63–82). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  48. Doytcheva, M. (2016). Between infra-right and public hospitality: Ambiguity in local policies towards Roma migrant families in France. International Journal of Migration and Border Studies, 2(4), 365–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Eumetra Monterosa. (2016). L’opinione degli italiani sull’arrivo degli immigrati [The opinion of Italians on the arrival of immigrants]. Retrieved from
  50. European Commission. (2009). Vademecum: The 10 common basic principles on Roma inclusion. Retrieved from
  51. European Commission. (2011). An EU framework for national Roma integration strategies up to 2020. Retrieved from
  52. European Commission. (2013). Roma platform. Retrieved from
  53. European Commission. (2016). Country report non-discrimination Italy. Retrieved from
  54. European Public Health Alliance. (2011). European Commission adopts EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies. Retrieved from
  55. European Roma Rights Centre. (2000). Campland: Racial segregation of Roma in Italy. Retrieved from
  56. European Roma Rights Centre. (2013). End of the road for Italy’s illegal state of emergency. Retrieved from
  57. European Roma Rights Centre. (2017). Parallel report: For Consideration by the Human Rights Committee at its 119th session (6 – 29 March 2017). Retrieved from
  58. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2017a). Fundamental Rights Report 2017. Retrieved from
  59. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2017b). Roma. Retrieved from
  60. Fazzi, L. (2011). L’innovazione nelle cooperative sociali in Italia [Innovation in social cooperatives in Italy]. Retrieved from
  61. Federico, V. (2012). Impresa sociale e terzo settore: esperienze europee [Social enterprise and Third Sector: European experiences]. In V. Federico, D. Russo, & E. Testi (Eds.), Impresa sociale, concorrenza e valore aggiunto. Un approccio europeo (pp. 89–131). Lavis: LEGO spa.Google Scholar
  62. Fiaschetti, M. E. (2017, September 28). Dieci campi rom (legali) da chiudere [Ten Romani (legal) camps need to be closed]. Corriere della Sera. Retrieved from
  63. Fiorucci, M. (2010). Un’altra città è possibile. Percorsi di integrazione delle famiglie Rom e Sinte a Roma: Problemi, limiti e prospettive delle politiche di inclusione sociale. [Another city is possible. Integration trajectories of Roma and Sinti families in Rome: Problems, limitations and perspectives of social inclusion policies]. Roma, Italia: Geordie onlus.Google Scholar
  64. Fischer, A. M. (2011). Between nation and state: Examining the International Romani Unions. Senior Projects Spring, Paper 12. Retrieved from
  65. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish (trans: Sheridan, A.). London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  66. Foucault, M. (1990). The history of sexuality: An introduction (trans: Hurley, R.). New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  67. FrancoAngeli. (2011, February). Norme redazionali [editorial rules]. Sociologia e Politiche Sociali. Retrieved from
  68. Gago-Cortés, C., & Novo-Corti, I. (2015). Sustainable development of urban slum areas in Northwestern Spain. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 26(6), 891–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Geertz, C. (2001). The Interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  70. Gheorghe, N., & Acton, T. (2001). Citizens of the world and nowhere: Minority, ethnic and human rights for Roma. In W. Guy (Ed.), Between past and future: The Roma of Central and Eastern Europe (pp. 54–70). Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press.Google Scholar
  71. Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. New York: Doubleday Anchor.Google Scholar
  72. Hepworth, K. (2012). Abject citizens: Italian ‘nomad emergencies’ and the deportability of Romanian Roma. Citizenship Studies, 16(3-4), 431–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Honig, B. (2009). Emergency politics: Paradox, law, democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Honig, B. (2014). Three models of emergency politics. Boundary 2, 41(2), 45–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Howard, M. M. (2010). Civil society and democracy. In H. K. Anheier & S. Toepler (Eds.), International encyclopedia of civil society (pp. 186–192). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  76. Isin, E. F., & Rygiel, K. (2007). Abject spaces: Frontiers, zones, camps. In E. Dauphinee & C. Masters (Eds.), Logics of biopower and the war on terror (pp. 181–203). Houndmills/Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Istituto per gli Studi di Politica Internazionale. (2015). Gli italiani e le migrazioni: percezione vs realtà [Italians and migration: perception vs. reality]. Retrieved from
  78. Italian National Institute for Statistics. (2016). La rilevazione sulle istituzioni non-profit: un settore in crescita [The survey of non-profit institutions: A rising sector].
  79. Keane, J. (2010). Civil society, definitions and approaches. In H. K. Anheier & S. Toepler (Eds.), International encyclopedia of civil society (pp. 461–464). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  80. Keller, R. (2016). Cañada Real Galiana, Madrid the largest slum in Europe. Retrieved from
  81. La Repubblica. (2017, January 27). Italia non-profit, arriva la piattaforma per far conoscere gli enti del Terzo settore [Italian non-profit, soon the launch of the platform to know Third Sector organization]. La Repubblica. Retrieved from
  82. Lee, R. (2002). Roma ande Kalisferia: Roma in limbo. In S. Montesi (Ed.), Terre Sospese: Vite di un campo rom [Suspended Worlds: Lives of a campo rom]. Roma: Prospettiva Edizioni Srl. Retrieved from
  83. Levy, C. (2010). Refugees, Europe, camps/state of exception: ‘Into the Zone’, the European Union and extraterritorial processing of migrants, refugees and Asylum-Seekers (theories and practice). Refugee Survey Quarterly, 29(1), 92–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Lintner, C. (2014). Overcoming the “nomad camps” by initiating a new learning process on the example of Bolzano (Italy). Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 775–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Lori, M. (2010, July). Autonomous or dependent: Isomorphic effects of public regulation on voluntary organisations. Paper presented at 9th International Conference of the International Society for Third Sector Research (ISTR), Istanbul. Retrieved from
  86. Lunaria. (2011). Chronicles of ordinary racism: Second white paper on racism in Italy (trans: Di Pietro, D. & Marshall, C.). Rome: Edizioni dell’Asino.Google Scholar
  87. Maestri, G. (2016). Persistently temporary. Ambiguity and political mobilisations in Italy’s Roma camps: A comparative perspective. Durham theses, Durham University. Retrieved from Durham E-Theses Online:
  88. Maestri, G. (2017). Struggles and ambiguities over political subjectivities in the camp: Roma camp dwellers between neoliberal and urban citizenship in Italy. Citizenship Studies, 21(6), 640–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Malinowski, B. (2002). Argonauts of Western Pacific. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.Google Scholar
  90. Marotta, V. (2011). The idea of the in-between subject in social and cultural thought. In M. Lobo, V. Marotta, & N. Oke (Eds.), Intercultural relations in a global world (pp. 179–199). Champaign: Common Ground Publishing LLC.Google Scholar
  91. Mason, M. (2010, September). Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative interviews. FQS, 11(3), art.8. Retrieved from
  92. McCulloch, G. (2004). Documentary research in education, history and the social sciences. London/New York: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  93. Mills, M. R., & Bettis, P. J. (2015). Using multiple theoretical frameworks to study organizational change and identity. In V. A. Anfara Jr. & N. T. Mertz (Eds.), Theoretical frameworks in qualitative research (pp. 96–118). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  94. Ministero dell’Interno. (2006). La pubblicazione sulle minoranze senza territorio [The publication on stateless minorities]. Retrieved from /default/it/assets/files/13/La_pubblicazione_sulle_minoranze _senza_territorio.pdf
  95. Molero-Mesa, J., & Jiménez-Lucena, I. (2013). (De)legitimizing social, professional and cognitive hierarchies. Scientific knowledge and practice in inclusion-exclusion processes. Dynamis: Acta Hispanica ad Medicinae Scientiarumque Historiam Illustrandam, 33(1), 13–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Musgrave, S., & Bradshaw, J. (2014). Language and social inclusion: Unexplored aspects of intercultural communication. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 37(3), 198–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Nicola, V. (2011). I ghetti per i rom. Roma, via Di Salone 323. Socianalisi narrativa di un campo rom [The ghettos for Romani people. Rome, Di Salone road, 323. Socio-analysis account of a Romani camp]. Cuneo: Sensibili alle Foglie.Google Scholar
  98. Otieno, M. (2015, December 8). Poverty is big business in the West: A new documentary savages the philosophy of foreign aid. MercatorNet. Retrieved from
  99. Patanè, S. (2003). The Third Sector in Italy. EuroSET Report, Rome: European Social Enterprise Training, Centro Italiano di Solidarietà di Roma.Google Scholar
  100. Peró, D. (1999). Next to the dog pound: Institutional discourses and practices about Rom refugees in left-wing Bologna. Modern Italy, 4(2), 207–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Peró, D. (2007). Inclusionary rhetoric/exclusionary practices. Left-wing politics and migrants in Italy. New York: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
  102. Piasere, L. (1985). Les pratiques de voyage et de stationament des nomades en Italie [Travel and short-stay practices of the nomads in Italy]. In A. Reyniers (Ed.), Les pratiques de deplacement, de halte de stationament des populations tsiganes et nomades en France (pp. 143–195). Paris: Centre de Recherches Tsiganes.Google Scholar
  103. Piasere, L. (2005). Popoli delle discariche: Saggi di antropologia zingara [Peoples of the dumps: Essays in Gypsy anthropology] (2nd ed.). Rome: CISU.Google Scholar
  104. Picker, G. (2010). Nomad’s land? Political cultures and nationalist stances vis-à-vis Roma in Italy. In M. Steward & M. Rovid (Eds.), Multidisciplinary approaches to Romany studies (pp. 211–227). Budapest: Central European University Press.Google Scholar
  105. Picker, G. (2011). Welcome ‘in’. Left-wing Tuscany and Romani migrants (1987–2007). Journal of Modern Italian Studies, 16(5), 607–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Pogány, I. (2004). Legal, social and economic challenges facing the Roma of Central and Eastern Europe. Queen’s Papers on Europeanisation, 2, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast.Google Scholar
  107. Ramadan, A. (2013). Spatialising the refugee camp. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 38(1), 65–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Ranci, C. (1994). The third sector in welfare policies in Italy: The contradictions of a protected market. International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 5(3), 247–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Ranci, C. (2015). The long-term evolution of the government – Third Sector partnership in Italy: Old wine in a new bottle? VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26(6), 2311–2329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Renzi, L. (2010). Roma people in Europe: A long history of discrimination. European Social Watch Report 2010. Retrieved from
  111. Rivera, A. (2003). Estranei e nemici [Aliens and enemies]. Rome: DeriveApprodi.Google Scholar
  112. Rossi, M. (2010). The city and the slum: An action research on a Moroccan and a Roma Xoraxanè community in Rome. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from
  113. Rövid, M. (2011). Cosmopolitanism and exclusion: On the limits transnational democracy in the light of the case of Roma. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from
  114. Saletti-Salza, C. (2003). Bambini del campo nomadi: Roma´ bosniaci a Torino [Children of the nomad camps: Bosnian Romanies in Turin]. Roma: CISU.Google Scholar
  115. Schmitt, C. (2005). Political theology: Four chapters on the concept of sovereignty. Edited and translated by Schwab, G. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  116. Scutellà, A. (2016, October 5). Rom, i campi non chiudono [Romanies, camps are not shut down]. La Repubblica. Retrieved from
  117. Shore, C., & Wright, S. (1997). Anthropology of policy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  118. Sigona, N. (2002). Figli del ghetto: Gli italiani, i campi nomadi e l’invenzione degli zingari [Sons of the ghetto: Italians, nomad camps and the invention of the Gypsies]. Civezzano: Nonluoghi.Google Scholar
  119. Sigona, N. (2005). Locating ‘The Gypsy problem’. The Roma in Italy: Stereotyping, labelling and ‘nomad camps’. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 31(4), 741–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Sigona, N. (Ed.). (2008). The ‘latest’ public enemy: Romanian Roma in Italy. The case studies of Milan, Bologna, Rome and Naples. Retrieved from
  121. Sigona, N. (2009). The ‘Problema Nomadi’ vis-à-vis the political participation of Roma and Sinti at the local level in Italy. In N. Sigona & N. Trehan (Eds.), Romani politics in contemporary Europe: Poverty, ethnic mobilization, and the neoliberal order (pp. viii–xiii). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Sigona, N. (2011). The governance of Romani people in Italy: Discourse, policy and practice. Journal of Modern Italian Studies, 16(5), 590–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Sigona, N. (2015). Campzenship: Reimagining the camp as a social and political space. Citizenship Studies, 19(1), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Silverman, C. (1995). Persecution and politicization: Roma (Gypsies) of Eastern Europe. Cultural Survival Quarterly, 19(2), 43–49. Retrieved from
  125. Simon, P. (2012). Collecting ethnic statistics in Europe: A review. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 35(8), 1366–1391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Solimano, N. (1999). Immigrazione, convivenza urbana e conflitti locali [Immigration, urban coexistence and local conflicts]. La Nuova Citta, 2(4), 135–140.Google Scholar
  127. Solimano, N., & Mori, T. (2000, June). A Roma ghetto in Florence. The UNESCO Courier.Google Scholar
  128. Solimene, M. (2013). Undressing the gağé clad in state garb: Bosnian xoraxané romá face to face with the Italian authorities. Romani Studies, 23(2), 161–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Springhetti, P. (2009). Le zone grigie del Terzo Settore [The grey area of the Third Sector]. Retrieved from
  130. Stasolla, C. (2017, September 28). Roma, il campo rom deve chiudere? Il Comune gli cambia nome e gli ospiti restano lì. Il Fatto Quotidiano. Retrieved from
  131. Teolato, L. (2016, June 24). Roma, arrestato per corruzione su appalti gestione campi nomadi [Rome, arrested for bribery in relation to tender procurement contracts for the management of nomad camps]. Il Fatto Quotidiano. Retrieved from
  132. Townley, B. (1997). The institutional logic of performance appraisal. Organization Studies, 18(2), 261–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Ufficio Nazionale Antidiscriminazioni Razziali. (2014). Strategia Nazionale d’inclusione dei Rom, dei Sinti e dei Caminanti: Attuazione comunicazione commissione europea n.173/2011 [National Strategy for the inclusion of Roma, Sinti and Camminanti communities: European Commission communication no. 173/2011]. Retrieved from
  134. UN-Habitat. (2016). Urbanization and development: Emerging futures. Retrieved from
  135. United Nations Global Compact. (2010). Civil society. Retrieved from
  136. Uzunova, I. (2010). Roma integration in Europe: Why minority rights are failing. Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, 27(1), 283–323. Retrieved from
  137. van Baar, H. (2014). The emergence of a reasonable Anti-Gypsyism in Europe. In T. Agarin (Ed.), When stereotype meets prejudice: Antiziganism in European societies (pp. 27–44). Stuttgart: Ibidem.Google Scholar
  138. van Baar, H. (2015). The perpetual mobile machine of forced mobility: Europe’s Roma and the institutionalization of rootlessness. In Y. Jansen, J. de Bloois, & R. Celikates (Eds.), The irregularization of migration in contemporary Europe: Deportation, detention, drowning (pp. 71–86). London/New York: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  139. Verbruggen, S., Christiaens, J., & Milis, K. (2011). Can resource dependence and coercive isomorphism explain nonprofit organizations’ compliance with reporting standards? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(1), 5–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Verhoeven, I., & Bröer, C. (2015). Contentious governance: Local governmental players as social movement actors. In J. W. Duyvendak & J. M. Jasper (Eds.), Breaking down the state protestors engaged (pp. 95–110). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press B.V..Google Scholar
  141. Vitale, T., & Caruso, L. (2009). Conclusioni. Ragionare per casi: dinamiche di innovazione nelle politiche locali con i Rom e i Sinti [Conclusions. Case by case analysis: Innovation dynamics in local politics with Rom and Sinti]. In T. Vitale (Ed.), Politiche possibili: Abitare le città con i rom e i Sinti (pp. 265–288). Rome: Carocci editore.Google Scholar
  142. Wacquant, L. (2011). A Janus-Faced institution of ethnoracial closure: A sociological specification of the ghetto. In R. Hutchison & B. Haynes (Eds.), The ghetto: Contemporary global issues and controversies (pp. 1–31). Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  143. Walters, W. (2011). Foucault and frontiers: Notes on the birth of the humanitarian border. In U. Bröckling, S. Krasmann, & T. Lemke (Eds.), Governmentality: Current issues and future challenges (pp. 138–164). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  144. Wotherspoon, T., & Hansen, J. (2013). The “Idle No More” movement: Paradoxes of First Nations inclusion in the Canadian context. Social Inclusion, 1(1), 21–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Riccardo Armillei
    • 1
  1. 1.Alfred Deakin Institute for Citizenship and Globalisation (ADI)Deakin UniversityBurwoodAustralia

Personalised recommendations