Call for papers 1-2026 – Deadline 30 October 2025

Innovating Institutional Policies. The Italian Pathways to Participatory Public Action

SINAPPSI launches a call for papers for a special issue entitled: Innovating Institutional Policies. The Italian Pathways to Participatory Public Action.

Guest Editors: Francesca GELLI (IUAV University of Venice – member of the SINAPPSI Scientific Committee) and Antonello SCIALDONE (INAPP Research Director, Head of Civil Economy and Migration Processes Unit)

CONTEXT
THEMES
SUBMISSION
BIBLIOGRAFY
CONTACT

Context

This special issue intends to offer a critical assessment and an update on the institutional instruments for the innovation of public action in Italy, which has invested in participation as a method for shaping public decisions. In light of the cases and initiatives that have emerged—consistent with international trends—there has been a general increase in the adoption of participatory approaches, which have been applied to a growing number of thematic areas, levels and sectors, and progressively extending across the entire policy cycle. The relative success of the introduction of institutes, tools and initiatives has depended both on external stimuli (such as European policies, policy transfer through adaptive and imitative dynamics, and international agendas through mainstreaming effects) and on internal factors, including political crises and a decline in democratic and decision-making quality (implementation deadlocks, weakened intermediary bodies, paralysing conflicts). In response, there have been grassroots demonstrations of vitality and enhanced social empowerment (Raniolo, 2024). Certain exogenous shocks have acted as catalysts, culminating in the current polycrisis scenarios (economic and financial, demographic, environmental), particularly in the context of the recent pandemic.

The theoretical framework for the diffusion of participatory practices in public policy-making has found a major conceptual framework in the trajectory of the “interactive state” (Akkerman, Hajer, Grin, 2004; Bobbio, 2004), which has adaptively evolved through successive strategic repositionings over the past fifty years. From the reformist wave of the 1960s, focused on overcoming the binary logic of rulers/ruled through methods of participation by involving and auditing “recipients” (Richardson, 1983; Klijn, Koppenjan, 2002), public institutions gradually reinvented themselves in the 1990s, redefining their role within the new framework of participatory governance, in relation to the network societyand in response to the high degree of social fragmentation and pluralism, which entailed a complex management of the governance process (Hajer, Wagenaar, 2003). This led to the development of tools constructing public participation as a technology aimed at good governance (Creighton, 2012).

In the past two decades, as inclusive decision-making approaches have consolidated, and deliberative practices have been experimented with, collaborative governance has gained strength, in an original combination of top-down and bottom-up components (Innes and Booher, 2003; McLaverty, 2002; Manzini and D’Alena, 2024). In addition to the issue of the openness of decision-making processes (inclusiveness), this collaborative approach thematises the need to increase the capacity of institutions to activate and dispose of useful resources to deal with public problems in situations of uncertainty and rapid change, supporting social innovation processes (Hoppe, 2011). The focus shifts to knowledge for action (Lindblom, Cohen, 1980; Fareri, 2009), with participatory pathways acting as formidable accelerators of local contexts understanding and resource activation. The design of policies envisages the configuration of interactive settingsthat favour joint action and the formation of integration and coordination structures, increasing collaboration opportunities among diverse stakeholders with varying interests, ideas, and values. This function extends to existing organised networks (Mayer, van Daalen, Bots, 2020), highlighting the opportunity to deepen the connection/relationship not only between institutional/governmental actors but also between non-institutional subjects (DiSalvo, Clement, Pipek, 2012)

In contemporary times, beyond the ongoing digitalisation transforming participation’s organisation and outcomes, new issues have emerged on governmental agendas. Collaborative policy formulation has become a response to managing common goods, driven by strong grassroots and developing participatory practices for shared and collective governance, conceptualised at the dawn of the new millennium (Ansell, Gash, 2007; Sorrentino et alii, 2018). Notably, the ecological transition has raised urgent questions about the interaction between society and nature (between human and non-human entities), with non-human rights being subjectivised in participatory processes towards forms of co-agency (Paba, 2011; Mangi et alii, 2024). The development of participatory processes within river, lagoon and lake contracts constitutes a wealth of experience.

However, the trajectory is not linear. Prejudices for and against participation persist, alongside fundamental issues. One limitation that participation encounters in promoting and implementing change lies in the resistance or inertia that emerges when a participatory process calls into question the governance structure of the systems involved (whether a complex organisation, a programme, a policy area, etc.), and when continuing action would require a renewal entailing internal reorganisation and a modification of the status quo. From this perspective, certain participatory failures (which portray it as ineffective) depend on the “non-decisions” that not infrequently follow the conclusion of a participatory process, regardless of whether that process was “successful” in terms of engagement and involvement. This generates a methodological complication for the evaluation and measurement of the outcomes and impacts of participatory processes.

Another critical issue concerns the topics shaping the participatory agenda in public policies. A common deterrent strategy involves directing participation towards minor issues, leaving strategic or contentious matters under the control of established governance systems. Therefore, the role of active citizenship and civic leadership becomes crucial in striving to gain influence over institutional agendas.

Themes for Contributions

The focus of this issue will be on the “Italian pathways” to participatory and collaborative policymaking and the tangible outcomes produced through these innovative experiments. The primary aim is to analyse what participation generates and innovates within public policies. We invite theoretical, methodological, and empirical contributions that propose and discuss cases of participatory policies, comparative research, conceptualisations, and models of observed processes. The following are illustrative, non-exhaustive examples of “pathways” characterising the Italian context, where settings, demands, policy agendas, resources, and actors combine uniquely:

  • the institutionalisation and (consequent) technicalisation/professionalisation of public participation (Bherer, Gauthier, Simard, 2017), which has led to the emergence of a labour market centred on participation—both in terms of supply and demand—featuring different professional profiles (such as facilitators, mediators, enablers, and engagement practitioners) and centres of expertise across the country (including agencies, private companies, and enterprises). At this level, fully developed expressions can be observed nationally (Open Government Partnership, Hub and Guidelines for National Participation; Public Debate), regionally (regional laws promoting participatory processes), and at urban and territorial levels (established participatory procedures, tools, in various policymakingfields). The characteristics that this institutionalisation process has outlined, configuring structured, expert, technically assisted participation, will be discussed. Among the issues raised in the debate:
  • The inclusiveness of participatory processes. Who takes part in participatory processes?
  • The role of guarantee bodies and independent authorities (e.g., the National Commission for Public Debate).

In other cases, the institutionalisation of participatory processes has also taken on a pedagogical role, as citizenship education. Within this framework of institutionalisation new emerging actors can be observed, such as universities that, through their Third Mission, practise forms of Public Engagement and have accumulated substantial experience; research centres engaged in Citizen Science; contexts linked to Christian religious circuits (the Catholic Church, the Waldensian Community), which for years have applied participatory methods in their work—ranging from pastoral activities to local initiatives—taking on new roles and mobilising human resources; and banking foundations which, in their respective territorial contexts, invest large volumes of financial resources, positioning themselves as active players in the governance of deprived areas.

  • the collaborative/pact-based way (of which “shared administration”, as defined by the Third Sector Code, is only one of the options), which is also culturally rooted in a tradition of cooperation for the care and regeneration of common goods. In response to economic and financial crises, the ecological transition, and grassroots movements—also at the international level—participatory agendas have prioritised civic and collective uses. These are developed through co-programming and co-production pathways that demonstrate concrete attention to vulnerable individuals and marginalised groups, and address topics often neglected in political agendas. In this light, the proposed participatory practices exert agenda-setting and innovation effects (at least at the micro level) within governance systems. Furthermore, they promote networking and strengthen conditions for community empowerment and institutional capacity-building, enabling processes of socio-institutional learning. Here, the emphasis shifts from “participation to decide” to “participation to act”, now influencing many experimental domains.
  • pathways of local participatory action and social initiative, which enhance the self-organisation and self-management capacities of communities, along with active citizenship, social volunteering, and the third sector. These show that citizens not only express needs and demands, but also skills, political and economic capacity, and a collective and relational intelligence (“the intelligence of society for social problem solving“: Lindblom, 1965).  These participatory practices are oriented towards the production or innovation of collective goods and services, in multiple areas, generating various interventions on a local scale and creating national networks. It is in this field that the conceptualisation of “generative participation” has taken hold, closely linked to the idea of “generative politics”. These experiences—widespread in the context of small municipalities that form the backbone of many areas of Italy—experiment with new responses to social needs and are not disconnected from institutions or profit enterprises, with which there is dialogue and often a partnership aimed at co-production, especially at the local level. Among the more structured experiences that may be explored in contributions (especially those offering multiple case comparisons): civic monitoring (PNRR) and monitoring communities (which involve actors professionally engaged in monitoring and evaluating the impact of projects and policy measures), assets confiscated from organised crime, community foundations, renewable energy communities, co-housing, and the circuits of the civic economy. The demand to evaluate the outcomes and impacts of these paths translates into the question: “What are these practices generative of?”

The monographic issue is also open to other proposals aligned with the general themes under consideration. The objective is to foster dialogue among researchers and scholars of various orientations and disciplinary sectors, including experts in participatory processes, decision-makers, and technical roles engaged in managing and designing bottom-up institutional initiatives. Contributions should document experiences, case analyses, comparative research, and enrich analyses of processes involving public and private clients, organised active citizenship, informal civic networks, and other actors within participatory circuits.

Submission Guidelines

Within these themes, we encourage the submission of original papers (not submitted to other journals), of length of between 5,000 and 8,000 words (about 10-16 pages) for publication in Issue 1/2026. Submissions should be sent to the editorial office of Sinappsi ([email protected]) by 30 October 2025, to be submitted for refereeing (double-blind peer review) following acceptance by the journal’s Scientific/Editorial Committee. Please fill in and send the Proposal Form together with your contribution. See also  Sinappsi_Bibliographic Standards : Download pdf.

Bibliography

  • Akkerman T., Hajer M., Grin J. (2004), The interactive state: Democratisation from above?, Political Studies, 52, pp.82-95
  • Ansell Ch., Gash A. (2008), Collaborative governance in theory and practice, The Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, n.4, pp.543-571
  • Bherer L., Gauthier M., Simard L. (2017), The professionalization of public participation, London, Routledge
  • Bobbio L. (a cura di) (2004), A più voci. Amministrazioni pubbliche, imprese, associazioni e cittadini nei processi decisionali inclusivi, Napoli e Roma, Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane
  • Creighton J.L. (2012), The public participation handbook: Making better decisions through citizen involvement, Hoboken, John Wiley & Sons Inc
  • DiSalvo C., Clement A., Pipek V. (2012), Communities: Participatory design for, with and by communities, in Simonsen J., Robertson T. (eds.), Routledge International Handbook of Participatory Design, London, Routledge, pp.182-210
  • Fareri P. (2009), Rallentare. Note sulla partecipazione dal punto di vista dell’analisi delle politiche pubbliche, in Fareri P., Giraudi M. (a cura di), Rallentare. Il disegno delle politiche urbane, Milano, Franco Angeli, pp.205-248
  • Hoppe R. (2011), The governance of problems. Puzzling, powering and participation, Bristol, Policy Press
  • Innes J.E., Booher D.E. (2003), Collaborative policymaking: Governance through dialogue, in Hajer M.A., Wagenaar H. (a cura di), Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp.33-59
  • Klijn E.H., Koppenjan J. (2002), Rediscovering the citizen: New roles for politicians in interactive policy making, London, Routledge
  • Lindblom C.E. (1965), The intelligence of democracy: Decision making through mutual adjustment, New York, The Free Press
  • Lindblom C.E., Cohen D.K. (1980), Usable knowledge. Social science and social problem solving, New Haven, Yale University Press
  • Mangi E., Weixuan Ch., Health T., Cheshmehzangi A. (2024), Innovative public participation practices for sustainable urban regeneration, Cham, Springer
  • Manzini E., D’Alena M. (2024), Fare assieme. Una nuova generazione di servizi pubblici collaborativi, Milano, Egea
  • Mayer I.S., van Daalen C.E., Bots P.W.G. (2020), Perspectives on policy analysis: A framework for understanding and design, in Routledge Handbook of Policy Design, London, Routledge, pp.161-179
  • McLaverty P. (2002), Public participation and innovations in community governance, London, Routledge
  • Paba G. (2011), Le cose (che) contano: nuovi orizzonti di agency nella pianificazione del territorio, CRIOS, 1, pp.67-80
  • Raniolo F. (2024), La partecipazione politica, Bologna, il Mulino
  • Richardson A. (1983), Participation, London, Boston, Melbourne and Henley, Routledge & Kegan
  • Sorrentino M., Sicilia M., Howlett M. (2018), Understanding co-production as a new public governance tool, Policy and Society, 37, n.3, pp.277-293

CONTACTS

Editorial team:  [email protected] 

Redazione:  [email protected]