Search

We investigate how socio-residential segregation has changed between 1991 and 2011 within the three biggest Italian metropolitan areas: Milan, Rome and Naples, using the OECD methodology to define the perimeters of the latter. We use data of the three last waves of the Italian population census (1991- 2001-2011) at the finest scale (census sections). To build a reliable (and internationally comparable) socio-professional typology, we work directly on the census microdata at the individual level to create a new variable of socio-professional positions. This variable has been created on the basis of individual occupation, sector of activity, type of contract. The combination of the three produces a more informative socio-professional scale, well adapted to compare the social segregation dynamics of Italian metropolises with those of other European metropolises (particularly London and Paris). To analyze residential segregation, we then build a typology of spaces based on the weight of the various socio-professional categories within the active resident population of each space. This is done following the methodology created by Préteceille to study residential segregation in France and Brazil, and further developed by Cousin & Préteceille to compare Milan and Paris at the beginning of 90s. This method of neighborhoods classification is based on a combination of ascending hierarchical classification techniques and correspondence factor analysis. The paper presents data, methodology, and a description of the main dynamics of urban change in the three metropolises between 1991 and 2011. It asks one main research question related to the residential behavior of middle classes, and then tests and nuances two hypothesis related to: (1) the reduction of social mix in the core neighborhoods of each metropolitan area, and to (2) upper-middle classes secession.

We investigate how socio-residential segregation has changed between 1991 and 2011 within the three biggest Italian metropolitan areas: Milan, Rome and Naples, using the OECD methodology to define the perimeters of the latter. We data of the three last waves of the Italian population census (1991-2001-2011) at the finest scale (census sections).To build a reliable (and internationally comparable) socio-professional typology, we have worked directly on the census microdata at the individual level to create a new variable of socio-professional positions. This variable has been created on the basis of individual answers to three questions, one related to the ISCO, one related to the type of job contract, and one related to the sector of activity. The combination of the three produces a more informative socio-professional scale, well adapted to compare the social segregation dynamics of Italian metropolises with those of other European metropolises (particularly London and Paris). To analyze residential segregation, we then build a typology of spaces based on the weight of the various socio-professional categories within the active resident population of each space. This is done following the methodology created by Préteceille to study residential segregation in France and Brazil, and further developed by Cousin&Préteceille to compare Milan and Paris at the beginning of 90s. This method of neighborhoods classification is based on a combination of ascending hierarchical classification techniques and correspondence factor analysis. The paper presents data, methodology, and a description of the main dynamics of urban change in the three metropolises between 1991 and 2011. It asks one main research question related to the residential behavior of middle classes, and then tests and nuances two hypothesis related to: (1) the reduction of social mix in the core neighborhoods of each metropolitan area, and to (2) upper-middle classes secession.

This paper provides a comparative analysis of the development of the UK and Italian university research funding systems with a special focus on Peer Review-Based Research Assessment (PRBRA) and its cost. Much of the debate surrounding the value of performance-based allocation systems hinges on the disadvantages versus the benefits of their implementation, and there is very little evidence on either their absolute cost or their cost relative to other allocation systems. Our objective is to fill this gap, collating the best possible estimates of the costs of alternative research funding methods to inform the ongoing policy debate. First, we compare funding in the UK and Italy during the period 2005–2012 and analyze the development of performance-based allocation in the two systems. Second, based on public reports and documents collected from universities, we discuss the public agency and university costs of RAE2008 and REF2014 and provide some estimates for VQR2012. We find that RAE2008 costs accounted for less than 1% of the total performance allocation in the related period while the VQR2012 efficiency ratio is estimated at around 2.5%. Finally, we compare the costs and efficiency ratios of PRBRA with metrics-based assessment and Research Council allocations and show that costs increase going from metrics to PRBRA to Research Council allocation.

This book provides readers with an in-depth understanding of the many ways in which universities contribute to economic development and growth. It demonstrates the causal interactions between universities’ activities and economic outcomes, and presents up-to-date quantitative and qualitative data in support. The authors present the theoretical tools and evidence to explain the manner and degree to which universities’ activities impact the economy, as well as analysing the comparative strengths and weaknesses of specific university systems.

In the aftermath of the 2018 general election results, several scholars have remarked on the inability of the Five Star Movement to increase its vote in Milan. While the role of demographic and socio-economic factors has been highlighted, little attention has been dedicated to understanding the complex role of spatial dynamics. This paper aims to contribute to the existing literature by inquiring about the relationship between support for the Five Star Movement and the characteristics of urban space in Milan. Following the longstanding debate in urban sociology, we recognise the importance of investigating this question beyond the borders of the central municipality. We overcome the problematic nature of standard approaches by analysing the entire Functional Urban Area of Milan as defined by the Oecd, using a new set of areas. Adopting an ecological approach, we define our spatial units in such a way that they have a sociological meaning and embrace the characteristics of the local population which actually voted at a specific polling station. We regress support for the Five Star Movement in each electoral district on a range of demographic, socio-economic and spatial variables. The results show that more disadvantaged districts beyond Milan’s municipal borders have a strong propensity towards supporting the Five Star Movement. Many of these areas were negatively affected by the economic crisis of 2008 and continue to experience severe difficulties. They are not places of extreme marginality, but may be described as «disenfranchised» areas with many unsatisfied needs that are largely ignored by the traditional parties.