Historically, one of the most significant causes of discrimination and, as a conseguence, of the social exlusion has been represented by the economic differences between people.
The underlying causes of poverty have not always been analyzed because, until the early 1900s, poverty itself was considered a non-eliminable element in society. This circumstance has contributed to the increasing of economic differences and, consequently, to the increasing of social exclusion.
In this regard, investigating possible solutions to the reduction of the abovementioned social inequalities, it has been found that the neighborhood in which one lives influences people's economic and social conditions, and, as a result, situations of widespread poverty arise in urban areas in which people are self-influenced, hence starting a sort of negative circularity.
Having regard to the above, the function of urban development planning is clear: it has to achieve the well-being and life quality of the communities established in urban areas also through the valorisation of diversity. Notwithstanding this circumstance, the public authorities (i.e., EU, States and territorial public entities) have rarely discussed the issue systematically: the regulatory plans are fragmented, as well as urban regeneration and town planning activities appear to be based on the mere and occasional aggregation of interventions. Without a new vision of urban development able to manage flexible systems, inequalities will not decrease (they have increased, indeed!). The most widely popular approach has been to leave the decision of where establish each economic activity completely up to the market. In an era where the inequalities are increasing and increasing, this approach has to be reconsidered.
In primis, it is necessary to discuss the decision-making method. All around EU (but not only) there are examples of public authorities that have aimed to reduce inequality through urban planning regulations. In order to adapt these foreign experiences to specific cases, not only States and other territorial entities have to enter into international agreements seeking to exchange information and best practices, but also (and mainly) citizens' assemblies or other instruments of deliberative democracy have to be established. The above mentioned “citizens’ assemblies” should be functional for the exchange of information and contributions of positive experiences: they should therefore be composed both by citizens of a city (or country) in which - thanks to a specific zoning regulation (flexible and based on genuine analyses of all the territorial, social and economic factors that influence everyday life) - the desired results have been achieved, and by citizens of the area in which the public authorities are considering to implement a zoning provision of the same content.
By establishing citizens' assemblies and by reporting successful examples, it would be avoided the phenomenon in which the enforceability of said rules is made more difficult because of the feeling that they are imposed without having consulted the primary stakeholders (i.e., the citizens). Moreover, many studies show that greater effectiveness in rule enforcement when human relationships are strengthened and when empathy is established. Concercing the role of the empaty (albeit with all the differences), it is possible to mention the importance of the use of “restorative justice” before some international trials (e.g., the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda).
After discussing the decision-making method, it is useful to consider the possible substance of zoning regulations aimed at decreasing social inequality and contextual discrimination. On this regard, as anticipated above, the idea on the basis of the “classical” town-planning norms is that the market has to decide where to establish the economic activities and the public authority can put some little limitations only. This approach has not been able to create functional mixes in the different areas of the cities and, often, there are cases where each neighborhood is characterized by the presence of a singular activity (e.g., certain neighborhoods are entirely residential, others are fully designed for the tertiary sector etc.). Such district conformation causes, of course, a different amount of public services to be provided and it gives birth to the abovementioned differences that, finally, result in fewer opportunities for citizens who risk to be socially marginalized.
With the above, it is not meant to equalize the existing differences between neighborhoods and between cities: this circumstance would be avoided through the aforementioned active citizen participation practices. The main purpose of the suggested town planning reorganization is that, each neighborhood should have a certain amount of different activity to be established, and - as a consequence - the economic operators cannot all choose the same district. Such an activity should not be considered as an imposition, as it would be the result (also) of decisions shared with the population and the economic operators themselves.
In this context, the role of the European Union will primarily be to create the conditions among States (member and non-member) for best practices to be developed and to create synergy of purpose in this matter. Such limitation in the activity of the EU is caused by the restrictive wording of Article 153 TFEU (i.e., Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) that limits the competence of the EU – in the struggle against social exclusion – to “adopt measures designed to encourage cooperation between Member States through initiatives aimed at improving knowledge, developing exchanges of information and best practices, promoting innovative approaches and evaluating experiences, excluding any harmonisation of the laws and regulations of the Member States”.
Having regard to the above, it is clear that a merely "negative" approach by the administrations has not been enough in the struggle against social exclusion, which is why it is necessary - with a view to involving as many national and international players as possible - to create an (urban planning) system in which administrations manage to balance out the differences between different areas and, consequently, to avoid the emergence of de-qualified neighborhoods.
Bibliography:
L. Cavola, E. Morlicchio, F. Moulaert, Social exclusion and urban policy in European cities: combining ’Northern’ and ’Southern’ European perspectives, in H.S. Geyer, International Handbook of Urban Policy, Cheltenham, 2007, 138-158.
C. Chwalisz, The People's Verdict, Adding Informed Citizen Voices to Public Decision-Making, New York, 2017.
C. Iaione, L’azione collettiva urbana e il partenariato pubblico-comunità, in La Co-città. Diritto urbano e politiche pubbliche per la rigenerazione urbana l’innovazione sociale l’economia collaborativa e i beni comuni, (a cura di) P. Chirulli e C. Iaione, Napoli, 2018, 17-35.
H. Silver, The Process of Social Exclusion: The Dynamics of an Evolving Concept, in SSRN Electronic Journal, 2007.
A. Simonati, Governo del territorio, tutela della sicurezza e coinvolgimento della cittadinanza: una sinergia praticabile?, in Stella Richter, P. (a cura di), La nuova urbanistica regionale: studi dal XXII Convegno nazionale, Palermo, 27-28 ottobre 2021, Milano, 2021.
A. Simonati, Il ruolo della cittadinanza nella valorizzazione dei beni culturali alla luce della Convenzione di Faro: niente di nuovo sotto il sole?, in Riv. Giur. Urb., n. 2, 2021.
P. Stella Richter, I principi del diritto urbanistico, Milano, 2018.
