This article examines the concept of «community» in the fields of health and healthcare, showing how it has become central to the reform of primary care in Italy despite the absence of clear definitions and methods of involvement. Drawing on three case studies – the mobilisation for the reopening of Villa Tiburtina in Rome, the implementation of the Budget di Salute (Health Budget) in Bologna, and the Community Participation Laboratory of a general practice clinic in Ferrara – the article explores how «community» is constructed and negotiated at the intersection of territory, participation, and care. The findings highlight tensions between top-down definitions and grassroots practices, between declared and actual forms of participation, and between spaces of democratic experimentation and neoliberal governance tools primarily aimed at cost containment. Rather than being treated as an epistemological limitation, these ambivalences are embraced as a methodological lens to interrogate dense and unstable concepts that shape contemporary welfare policies.
Consoloni, M., Negrogno, L., Vallerani, S. (2025). Territorio, partecipazione, cura: ambivalenze della «comunità» in salute e sanità. POLITICHE SOCIALI, 2/2025, 353-377 [10.7389/119277].
Territorio, partecipazione, cura: ambivalenze della «comunità» in salute e sanità
Martina Consoloni;Luca Negrogno;
2025
Abstract
This article examines the concept of «community» in the fields of health and healthcare, showing how it has become central to the reform of primary care in Italy despite the absence of clear definitions and methods of involvement. Drawing on three case studies – the mobilisation for the reopening of Villa Tiburtina in Rome, the implementation of the Budget di Salute (Health Budget) in Bologna, and the Community Participation Laboratory of a general practice clinic in Ferrara – the article explores how «community» is constructed and negotiated at the intersection of territory, participation, and care. The findings highlight tensions between top-down definitions and grassroots practices, between declared and actual forms of participation, and between spaces of democratic experimentation and neoliberal governance tools primarily aimed at cost containment. Rather than being treated as an epistemological limitation, these ambivalences are embraced as a methodological lens to interrogate dense and unstable concepts that shape contemporary welfare policies.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.


