Sharitaly 2017: Platforms in action

Sharitaly 2017: Platforms in action

On December 5th and 6th, the fifth edition of Sharitaly, Platform in action, will be held in Milan, at BASE. The event organized by Collaboriamo and Trailab is a chance for scholars, operators, designers, and observers to reflect, observe and share experiences, in order to understand how collaborative practices are changing.

On December 5th, three high-level masterclass will be held at the morning, in order to deepen the techniques and knowledge of the platform model.

On December 6th, there will be a series of talks and workshops organized on 8 topics:

  • Collaborative Platforms Design;
  • Territorial welfare;
  • Welfare Business;
  • Scale up of collaborative services;
  • Workers;
  • Platform Cooperativism;
  • New collaborative place and services;
  • Collaborative cities.


Prof. Christian Iaione and Elena de Nictolis will be speakers of the Panel “Algoritmo Bologna: il Rapporto CO-Bologna sui primi tre anni di sperimentazione della collaborazione civica a Bologna”, on December 6th, from 4.00 to 5.00 p.m..

Findings of the Co-Bologna program will be presented. The panel will introduce the theoretical and methodological framework of the process, describing the actions of the program and outputs produced. It will analyze the collaborative pacts approved by the Regulation on civic collaboration for the urban commons between 2014 and 2016, carried out by LabGov in collaboration with the TrailLab,  and the policy innovations dealing with urban regeneration in the suburbs and the housing.



Il 5-6 Dicembre si terrà a Milano la V edizione di Sharitaly, Platform in action. Il 6 Dicembre, dalle 16 alle 17, si terrà il Panel “Algoritmo Bologna: il Rapporto CO-Bologna sui primi tre anni di sperimentazione della collaborazione civica a Bologna”, a cura del Prof. Christian Iaione ed Elena de Nictolis.

Can sustinable mobility systems support Vibrant Communities?

Can sustinable mobility systems support Vibrant Communities?

Mobility represents a fundamental right, intimately tied to the quality of life in cities, hamlets and suburbs, occupying a large portion of the community’s land.

In this regard, the increase expected by 2050 of over 66%  (compared to 54% in 2014) of the world population that will reside in cities must be taken into account. Indeed, people living in urban areas spend a considerable amount of time on public transportation, as stated by a current, exentsive study, carried out by Ipsos and the Boston Consulting Group in ten of the major European Union countries, looking at transport infrastructure.

The research shows that:

  • a European citizen employes, on average, 9 hours and 35 minutes to move every week;
  • there is a strong car dependence, which is the mean of transport mainly used.

The European citizens seem to be, overall, quite satisfied of the single infrastructures of mobility as the railroads, the road net, the system of public transportation, but they are very dissatisfied instead of the level of interconnection existing among these infrastructures. Furthermore, currently transportation systems lack efficiency, facing up new – bottom up – needs required.

Neverthless, transportation is often used to be centered on private vehicles. This choice, however, does not result very efficient: from a user’s perspective, it usually provides limited transportation options, but it also leads to severe congestion and considerable gas expenses, especially in densely populated urban areas, due to traffic jams, lack of parking space and high costs due to increasing fuel prices[1].

These concerns, as can be seen, are too crucial to be ignored[2]. Improving roads could ease temporarily congestion levels; however, the study of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre found no significant impacts on reducing congestion.


In this regard, a truly sustainable mobility system should be necessary; it needs a virtuous circle, produced by investments in infrastructures more interconnected, in a way which provides local, regional and inter-regional accessibility at an affordable cost to families and businesses, while serving community needs for social and economic exchange.

This goal, however, couldn’t be achieved without a change of approach (even methodological) by both public spheres and community, supported by the development of the new technologies as an important contribution to road safety too. Transportation, in conclusion, shouldn’t just be considered as a goal in and of itself, but as a wider powerful tool, useful for the development of livable, productive, equitable and healthy communities, in accordance with the new and more active role played by community.

Transportation, as well as pollution, road congestion and many other concerns mentioned above, constitute issues not only related to the European framework, because they also affect the American landscape.

In view of the above, many American and European initiatives can be mentioned, respectively encouraging projects among Departments of Transportation, Community Partnership Program and citizen awareness, even to ensure cities would remain a desirable place to live.

The first illustrative initiative, above all, is the development of Smart Transportation. Namely, the Pennsylvania and New Jersey Departments of Transportation partnered in the development of the Smart Transportation Guidebook in 2008. It achieved to integrate the planning and design of streets and highways in order to foster the development of sustainable and livable communities.


In this regard, the concept of Smart transportation was taken into account: it means incorporating both financial and environmental constraints, community needs and aspirations, land use, as a new approach to planning and designing roadways. Thus, transportation investments should be tailored to the specific needs of each project, while the adequate determination of solution’s design is measured case by case, pursuant to the whole financial, community, land use, transportation, and environmental context.

Better transportation solutions, however, are considered as a result of a deeper process involving a multi-disciplinary team, considering a wide range of solutions, works closely with the community. Smart Transportation also encompasses network connectivity, and access and corridor management. It would help both states and communities to adapt to the new financial context of constrained resources.  


This initiative, however, sheds light upon the new role of DOTs, which have to support Vibrant Communities into the delivery of transportation projects. This goal was a key concept of the project Building Projects that build Communities, carried out by the Washington State Department of Transportation in 2003.      


 Even if DOTs are faced with economic, health, environmental and social challenges, they can’t effectively support many communities’ programme, as active transportation, defined as humanpowered modes of transportation, involving walking and bicycling, but also skate boarding, canoeing, roller-skating. In these cases, DOTs’ responsibility is often restricted in many states to the state highway network, so their efforts to support active transportation is limited to the state network.

Besides these initiatives, closely related to infrastructures, EU institutions aim at raising and fostering citizen awareness, through rewards, on the quality of the urban environment where people live, in order to promote a shift towards more sustainable and healthy mobility choices. In this regard, technologies have an essential role[3].

MUV – Mobility Urban Values – is a Research and Innovation Action funded by the European Commission under the call Horizon2020 MG-4.5-2016.

The MUV system will result from the combination of:

  • behavioural change techniques;
  • new technologies;
  • data science;
  • co-design approaches.


The solution will include a mobile app, which will track users’ daily routes and assign points for sustainable behaviours and a network of sensing stations designed by the makers’ community. Urban commuters, from a set of six different urban neighbourhoods, spread across Europe, will co-create and then test different game dynamics; finally, their achievements will be rewarded by a network of local businesses that will benefit from the advertising provided by the MUV platform.

The methodology used reflects the Gamification, ICT and data science to translate people’s needs into new sustainable mobility solutions.

Mobility and environmental data are gathered via the mobile app and the monitoring stations; they are all released as Open Data: data visualization can simplify complex information about urban mobility and support decision making; it will allow policymakers to enhance planning processes and civic hackers to build new services able to improve cities’ quality of life in a more effective way.

In particular, the MUV solution will be open, co-created with a strong learning community of users and stakeholders and piloted in six different European neighbourhoods:

  • Buitenveldert in Amsterdam;
  • Sant Andreu in Barcelona;
  • the historic district of the Portuguese county of Fundao;
  • Muide-Meulestede in the harbour of Ghent;
  • the new area of Jätkäsaari in Helsinki;
  • the area of the Historic Centre in Palermo.

This approach will allow to reach specific objectives, as understanding the neighborhoods’ peculiarities and emerging values to define an effective behavior change strategy. Co-designing site-specific solutions will foster better and more liveable urban environments, developing scalable digital solutions and technologies to improve globally the experience of urban mobility, integrating new co-created mobility solutions into urban policy-making and planning processes at neighborhood level.

Raising awareness among citizens on the importance of sustainable and healthy mobility choices could be a successful approach to reduce private vehicular traffic and its negative externalities, encouraging local consumption. In this regard, MUV builds on the experience of trafficO2, an Italian research-action project co-funded in 2012 by a grant from the Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research and carried out by PUSH – MUV’s Project Coordinator – in the city of Palermo in the last three years. The experimentation involved 2.000 students of the University of Palermo and a network of 100 local businesses, and showed a reduction of the carbon emissions associated to the active users of more than 40%.

Data and sharing mobility and environmental data to build an effective decision support system for multiple stakeholders, bringing the whole experiment to the market through an innovative business model in order to improve urban transportation in crowded neighborhoods and cities all over the world. This research embrace a model that socializes data and encourages new forms of cooperativism and democratic innovation, but it also raises the question of data ownership and sovereignty.

La mobilità ricopre un ruolo fondamentale nella vita di ogni cittadino. La crescita demografica, l’inquinamento e la congestione, nonché la diffusione delle nuove tecnologie, inducono un ripensamento degli ordinari approcci in materia, ma soprattutto del rapporto tra il pubblico e i cittadini.



[1] Sahami Shirazi, Alireza & Kubitza, Thomas & Alt, Florian & Pfleging, Bastian & Schmidt, Albrecht, WEtransport: a context-based ride sharing platform. 425-426 (2010), doi 10.1145/1864431.1864469.

[2] C. Iaione, The tragedy of urban roads: Saving Cities from Choking, Calling on Citizens to Combat Climate Change, 37 Fordham Urb. L.J. 889 (2009).

[3] Zhang Z., Beibei L., A quasi experimental Estimate of the Impact of P2P Transportation Platforms on Urban Consumer Patterns, in Proceedings of KDD ’17, August 13-17, 2017, Halifax, NS, Canada, , 9 pages. DOI: 10.1145/3097983.3098058.

A regulation for the Italian Home Restaurant: Ddl AC-3258, pros and cons.

A regulation for the Italian Home Restaurant: Ddl AC-3258, pros and cons.

When talking about the sharing economy, its legislative dimension is always a burning issue. In this context, in recent times the regulation of the so-called home restaurant has been high on the agenda, especially in Italy. But what is it the home restaurant?

As defined on the Home Restaurant website, “the Home Restaurant is the opportunity given to anyone who loves to stay in the kitchen to turn their house and their own kitchen in a restaurant occasionally open for friends, acquaintances and strangers (travelers especially) who will have the chance to experience the original kitchen of the places frequented regularly or during a trip.” In this way, private citizens can organize paid dinners in their house through an online platform.

The trend started in 2006 with the guerrilla restaurants in New York[1], and then spread in 2009 in the UK. Thanks to social networks, the phenomenon has spread like wildfire, leading to the birth of the Supper Club[2] of New York, the Cuban “particular houses” and the Home Restaurants, realities that show us how the kitchen passion can turn into a real business while respecting the law of each country. The Home Restaurant offers the added value of territory discovery, making it possible to experience typical recipes made with local products, and directly cooked at home by grandmothers, mothers, aunts, sisters and brothers who turn into chefs and offer opportunities to meet, exchange, swap ideas, and eat in the fullest respect of tradition.

Faced with these new trends, traditional restaurants have been highly critical, considering the home restaurants as unfair competition. Instead, those who support the service believe there is nothing disloyal, and that home restaurants promote competition, the main engine of the business-initiative system on which liberal economies are based. Restaurants are public places: according to Italian law, this means that they are places open to the public, where business activities take place with the aim of providing services to the public itself. Anyone can access them freely and make use of the services provided. Homes are just homes, closed to the public, and since they are not public exercises, they are not subject to the same rules restaurants have to respect. To those who claim that home restaurants expose people to the risk of food poisoning, the supporters of the service reply underlying that FIPE data (Italian Federation of Public Concerns) show that the risk of poisoning in a restaurant is twice as much as the risk in a house, and in both cases the risk is minimal.

In Italy, the heavy critiques and attacks to the formula of the home restaurant coming from the traditional services have brought to the definition of a specific bill (the Ddl. AC-3258) on the discipline of the restaurant business in private houses, presented at the Chamber of Deputies and approved with 326 votes in favor (and only 23 negative votes) on January 17th 2017. While the next step, the discussion and  approval at the Senate, will take a long time, the bill is already triggering controversy and polemics.

What does it propose?

  • First of all, the home restaurant activity is considered an occasional activity and, for this reason, it may not bill more than 5 thousand euro per year, nor serve a seating capacity of over 500 units per calendar year;
  • It introduces the obligation to rely on dedicated digital platforms to interact with potential customers, and, above all, the mandatory payment through electronic systems to prevent tax evasion (phone reservations and cash payments are not allowed);
  • A requirement that has caused much discussion is the mandatory online presentation of the SCIA, a declaration for starting the commercial activity;
  • In addition, a health certification (hygienic sanitary certification – HACCP) is required, as well as the stipulation of a home insurance that covers the risks connected with the activity;
  • The “kitchen operators” must also meet the integrity requirements of Article 71 of Legislative Decree 59/2010 (the absence of criminal convictions for various offenses);
  • Approved also the quibble ratified in the article 5: “the home restaurant business cannot be exercised in residential real estate unities in which tourists’ accommodation activities in a non-business form or rental activities for periods of less than thirty days are exercised”; the article expresses the clear will to break the combo “social eating-Airbnb”.

The bill has been met with different reactions: from one side the FIPE and the Fiepet Confesercenti called themselves satisfied, since, in their opinion, there is finally an almost complete law ending tax evasion; the law rapporteur, Angelo Senaldi (PD), defines the law “a necessary intervention that aims to regulate a sector, that of restaurants in private houses, which is developing exponentially in the wake of the broader law sharing economy. It aims to protect both operators and consumers and has been written respecting  transparency at its maximum, since payments will be made electronically and then tracked through web platforms that combine the operators providing the catering service to the final customer. It is an innovative legislation, the first in Europe, which tends to boost the sharing economy in line with the European directive”. On the opposite side the home restaurant supporters, led by the founder of the web platform, Giambattista Scivoletto, have expressed a clear disappointment towards the bill, claiming that it discourages and slows down both those who are already in the sector and those who wish to enter it, and advantages only the restaurateurs’ lobbies. They consider its approach discriminatory, since it impedes the promotion through private channels such as social networks and favors bureaucratic slowness. Scivoletto criticizes both the registration requirement on dedicated platforms and the electronic payment, which in his opinion “will prevent 85% of likely openings”. Confedilizia, the associations of house owners, is of the same advice and interprets the bill as the “de profundis” of the home restaurant, since it imposes “limitations, prohibitions, restrictions towards a way by which some Italians try to work hard to improve their condition, helping to move an asphyxiated economy like ours”. Therefore, according to the home restaurant supporters, the Parliament has sought to safeguard the FIPE’s interests, often intolerant in terms of openness towards new models of business, even if the European Community had given clear guidelines on this regard. In June 2016, the Commissioner for the Internal Market, Elzbieta Bienkowska, had indeed reminded the State Members of the importance of enhancing and helping the sharing economy to grow, even launching a “European Agenda for the sharing economy” (available here).

Among those who criticize the bill there is Cristiano Rigon, founder of the famous Italian social eating platform Gnammo (with more than 210 thousand users), who was indirectly called into the discussion by the text itself, as guarantor of the activity. He welcomes the fact that there will be a rule regulating the home restaurant business, as this will allow all aspiring chefs to experience the sharing economy without fear of going against the law. Nevertheless, in his opinion, proposing such stringent limits demonstrates that the real nature of the home restaurant has not been understood, since it is not related to the classical restaurant experience and it does not represent a rival but a development for the sector. According to Rigon, it would have been more appropriate to start regulating the entire framework of the sharing economy and only after that looking at more specific sectors. He also criticizes the limit imposed of 5 thousand euros, a peak that goes against the EU dictates suggesting not to put limits to this kind of business models. The same reasoning brings to criticize the prohibition to be a home restaurant if already joining the Airbnb platform. Therefore, while Rigon has distanced himself from those rejecting the full text, he stresses the importance of not blocking the growth of this kind of activities and hopes  the Senate will be able to make the legislation simpler.

Now it is up to the Senate, and the hope is that innovation will not be hindered in the process.


Il 17 gennaio 2017 la Camera ha approvato il disegno di legge sugli Home Restaurant. Dopo molte critiche e polemiche soprattutto da parte dei ristoratori tradizionali, il vuoto normativo in cui si trovava questo tipo di servizio è stato riempito con la proposta del Ddl AC-3258. Tuttavia la legge non trova tutti concordi. Se per alcuni è stata finalmente normata un’attività che rischiava di alimentare l’evasione fiscale e lo si è fatto nel rispetto delle indicazioni europee; per altri invece le direttive europee non sono state propriamente seguite e la proposta corre il rischio di penalizzare duramente l’Home Restaurant a favore delle lobby dei ristoratori. Ora la parola passa al Senato che valuterà il ddl e stabilirà se snellirlo o meno.






[1] The guerrilla restaurants, born as a protest of some chefs dismissed from great restaurants in London and New York, decided to serve great food at the cost of production. They are unconventional and anti-crisis places that at the beginning took advantage of the simultaneous presence on the square of many unemployed great chefs.

[2] A supper club is a traditional dining establishment that also functions as a social club.

The #CollaboraToscana project

The #CollaboraToscana project

On June 29th 2016 academics, practitioners and active citizens gathered at the Auditorium of Saint Apollonia in via San Gallo 25 in Florence for the opening of #CollaboraToscana, the public policy co-design process led by Tuscany Region, supervised by LabGov and managed by SocioLab.

#CollaboraToscana projected to focus on collaboration and sharing economy aiming to co-create a map of regional public policies – a synergy and a proposal for targets, actions and measures which would be co-designed and deployed at different levels to maximize opportunities and minimize risks for the sharing economy and collaborative development of the region. Therefore, the objective of the conference and workshop series was to introduce diverse, yet interconnected approaches and tools for regional collaborative practices. By emphasizing on sustainability, inclusion and  the themes of presentations varied from start-ups to infrastructure, territorial regeneration and security, and from participatory governance to digital innovation and communication – all being closely tied to collaboration and sharing economy.

1The event was opened by the Deputy President of the Toscana Region Vittorio Bugli who after a warm welcome acknowledged the promising #CollaboraToscana initiative. V. Bugli stressed that in regards to the sharing economy, sustainability and collaborative management of the region the recognition of civic participation is crucial. The Deputy President thus emphasized that it is important to address migration while focusing on collaboration. “In Tuscany we are very attentive to the reception of migrants fleeing from their countries”- said Bugli. “But we have to think of a greater integration, these people can be an important vantage rather than obstacle in terms of collaboration”- after the conference stressed V. Bugli.

2The first keynote Marta Mainieri (, focused on collaboration in terms of innovation and start-ups. M. Mainieri stressed that the new economy model – a collaborative economy – is important first of all because its volumes are rapidly growing. “Gross revenue in the EU from collaborative platform and providers was estimated to be 28 billion in 2015. Growth in recent years has been spectacular with revenues almost doubling from 2014 to 2015”- presented M. Mainieri. Yet, despite of the growing amount of the sharing economy practices, M. Mainieri emphasized the need to recognize the real value of collaboration, which is based on collective knowing, connection, co-planning and communication and therefore is projected to contribute to the construction of open, more inclusive systems that are based on trust and reciprocity, rather than exclusion.


3The second speaker, Massimo Alvisi (Alvisi-Kirimoto, Renzo Piano G124) focused on city requalification and regeneration. By illustrating his presentation with the experiences from Viadotto dei Presidenti in Rome, Via Fossata in Torino, and Librino in Catania, M. Alvisi emphasized that in terms of urban regeneration, collaboration has a great potential to contribute to social wellbeing, security as well as revitalization of deteriorated urban areas (more information related projects:


4This was followed by the engaging Annibale D’Elia’s presentation. While addressing collaboration A. D’Elia, a consultant for innovation policies, touched upon topics of inclusion and citizens’ engagement. He stressed that collaboration in terms of governance is mainly about the unleashing the energy of the people, who should be enabled and facilitated in order to actively participate and collaborate. Furthermore, the last speaker Michele D’Alena, an expert in e-government processes and social innovation, supported Annibale’s comments by adding that digital means – the information communication technologies (ICT), are essential for sharing economy, collaboration as well as active citizens’ engagement.

The presentations were followed by Silvia Givone who represents Sociolab and works with #CollaboraToscana project. After thanking to all presenters S. Givone introduced the road map and the critical phases of #CollaboraToscana (more about #CollaboraToscana:


The first part of the conference was followed by the debate between Antonella Galdi, the vice secretary of the National League of Italian Cities, Stefano Bartolini, a professor of political economy at the University Siena, Ernesto Belisario, an expert in law of technology and innovation in public administrations, and Marta Leonori, representing the department of Civil Service.



Lastly, the conference was finalized by the series of workshops on co-planning to co-create concepts of collaboration and sharing economy by mapping (meaning, opportunities and problems) activities. Participants were divided into 4 groups (representing public and private sectors, knowledge institutions, civic social organizations) and were asked to further reflect on prevalent issues (infrastructure, services, goods and governance) and to design possible tools for a regional policies on the economy of sharing and collaboration.


The event was moderated by Christian Iaione, LabGov co-director, who outlined the prevailing currents of collaboration and sharing economy and supported the presentations as well as panel debates by insightful comments.





Focus on the author: Christian Iaione

This article is a focus on the figure of LabGov’s coordinator, professor Christian Iaione.

Christian Iaione is associate professor of public law at Guglielmo Marconi University of Rome, fellow of the Urban Law Center at Fordham University, and visiting professor of governance of the commons at LUISS Guido Carli. He is an expert of the EU Committee of the Regions and he is member of the Sharing Economy International Advisory Board of the Seoul Metropolitan Government.

Prof. Iaione has published several articles in the field of public and administrative law and, in particular, land use, public goods and the commons, public services and public contracts, urban law and local government. He has authored two books on In house publicly-owned companies. Contribution to the principle of self-organization and self-production of local governments (Jovene, 2007 – 2012, II ed.) and The regulation of urban mobility (Jovene, 2008) and has co-authored Italy of the Commons (Carocci, 2012) and The Age of Sharing (Carocci, 2015).

Here is an anthology of his publications:


  • L’Italia dei beni comuni (with G.Arena), Carrocci, Rome, (2012).
  • L’età della condivisione (with G.Arena) Carrocci, Rome (2015).


Recent Publications:

  • La città collaborativa: la governance dei beni comuni per l’urbanistica collaborata e collaborativa, published in Agenda RE-CYCLE, Proposte per reinventare la città (Il Mulino, 2017). Available soon.
  • The City as a Commons (Yale Law and Policy Review, 2016), together with Sheila R. Foster. “City space is highly contested space. As rapid urbanization takes hold around much of the world, contestations over city space – how that space is used and for whose benefit – are at the heart of many urban movements and policy debates”. Full article here.
  • Lo Stato – Piattaforma di immaginazione civica, la politica e le istituzioni nel secolo del CO-, published in 25 anni di riforme della PA: troppe norme, pochi traguardi, 39 (Forum PA, Annual Report 2016). An analysis of how the State should begin to function as a Platform and of how institutions and policies should evolve in the “CO-” age – a period in which the key words seem to be community, collaboration, cooperation, communication, commons, co-design, co-production, co-management, co-housing, co-design, sharing, knowledge, etc. Full article here.
  • La quintupla elica come approccio alla governance dell’innovazione sociale, published in I luoghi dell’innovazione aperta, modelli di sviluppo territoriale e inclusione sociale, 74 (Quaderni, Fondazione G.Brodolini, Studi e Ricerche, November 2016).  In this paper it is stated that the “Collaborative City” (CO-City) urban co-governance framework, based on the three levels of sharing, pooling and poly-centrism, can facilitate collaborative and open knowledge production and social innovation processes within the city. Furthermore, the CO-City approach further elaborates on the triple helix governance model and develops a more complex and precise version, defined as quintuple helix model, which identifies the five actors of the polycentric governance. Full article here.
  • Poolism: sharing economy vs. pooling economy (LabGov website, 2015). Sharing economy builds on new or revived social patterns having important business, legal and institutional implications: the social practices of sharing and collaboration. They both build on the well known social practice of co-operation.
    Full article here.
  • The Co-City (American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 2015).
    This paper introduces an innovative, experimental, adaptive, and iterative approach to creating legal and institutional frameworks based on urban polycentric governance to foster collaborative urban planning. Full article here.
  • The Collaborative and Polycentric Governance of the Urban and Local Commons (Urban Pamphleteer #5, 2015), together with Paola Cannavò. “Institutions, designed in a historical era in which the government handed out basic services to citizens, are nowadays required to design new types of services in collaboration with citizens. In order to define better forms of urban and local governance, it’s necessary to study and elaborate a new paradigm, to find new theories, policies and development models”. Full article here.
  • Governing the Urban Commons (Italian Journal of Public Law, 2015).
    The purpose of this paper is to investigate a fundamental question relating to institutional design in the public sector. After two centuries of Leviathan-like public institutions or Welfare State, do we still need full delegation of every public responsibility and/or exclusive monopoly of the power to manage public affairs? Full article here.
  • La collaborazione civica per l’amministrazione, la governance e l’economia dei beni comuni (L’età della condivisione, 2015).
    “In Italia i beni comuni sono ormai entrati nel lessico quotidiano. Il rischio è che «beni comuni» diventi un’espressione di senso comune, ma priva di effettivo valore semantico e, soprattutto, di rigore scientifico: casella vuota che chiunque si senta legittimato a riempire con qualunque significato”. Full article here.
  • Città e Beni Comuni (L’Italia dei Beni Comuni, 2012).
    “Dove va una persona se vive in una città, non ha la fortuna di possedere un giardino e sente il bisogno di immergersi in un ambiente naturale, usufruire di tutti i servizi che uno spazio verde può fornire come correre, leggere un libro su un prato all’aria aperta, respirare aria mediamente più pulita?”. Full article here.
  • The Tragedy of Urban Roads: Saving Cities from Choking, Calling on Citizens to Combat Climate Change (Fordham Urban Law Journal, 2009).
    This article argues that the best response to the tragedy of road congestion has to rely on market-based regulatory techniques and public policies aimed at controlling the demand-side of transportation congestion.
    Full article here.
  • Local Public Entrepreneurship and Judicial Intervention in a Euro-American and Global Perspective (Washington University Global Studies Law Review, 2008). “Local public entrepreneurship encompasses a variety of activities carried out by local governments designed to foster local economic development. This article presents local public entrepreneurship as a windfall of the right to local self-government”. Full article here.

A complete list of his publications is available here.


Recent articles and interviews: