ソーシャル・イノベーションを育む 媒介の場所 ボローニャとそのアーバン・ユニット(Intermediate places as urban units for social innovation in Bologna)

Cities are undergoing unprecedented shocks and stress, staging societal and economic transformations and showcasing global environmental and social effects. In order to tackle these uncertainties, urbanism has long dealt with cities in which planning and extra-planning coexist (Pasqui 2013), intertwine, and influence each other, building a stratification of hierarchical and power relations, devices of inclusion (and exclusion). This perspective, can be retrieved in the extensive literature on social innovation as a transformative factor for urban policies and planning (Bureau of European Policy Advisers, 2014; Moulaert et al., 2010; Mulgan, 2006). Social innovation label has for decades described a portion of organised society that activates and intervene to fill the gap, left by the public or the market, in the distribution of services or in the construction of cohesive environments and the care of public spaces. The concept has been deeply embedded in the urban studies debate for many years (Moulaert et al., 2013; Servillo & Van Den Broeck, 2012), understood as the set of voluntary, non-state initiatives led by citizens or otherwise organized groups to address social needs that have not yet been addressed or emerged (Moulaert & Nussbaumer, 2005; Murray et al., 2010) by creating opportunities for change in local societies (Gerometta et al., 2015). While much of the literature has focused on social innovation as a process that impacts local societies to improve the redistribution of benefits (Gerometta et al., 2005), other perspectives meant it as a tool capable of changing the relationship between communities and institutions in planning processes (Vicari Haddock & Moulaert, 2009). In this vein, several studies have largely focused on the capacities of transformative action of practices, on the effectiveness of episodic action “from the bottom-up” read in some cases, as an everyday politics (Manzini, 2015; Manzini & Staszowski, 2013). Such activation, could contribute to a rethinking of how public action is taken on the city, changing some of the assumptions and resistances embedded in more traditional planning imagination (Sandercock, 2004).