Collaborative governance in politicized times: the battle over asylum policies in Italian cities

Collaborative governance has gained momentum for its promise to deliver social inclusion, with municipalities viewed as ideal spaces for its success. However, little research critically examines the political conditions under which this is the case. This article theorizes why and how collaborative local governance succeeds or fails in today’s divided democracies. It argues that politicization manifests in three dimensions of local governance—among stakeholders, across government levels, and in the framing of policy target groups. These dynamics often incentivize the exclusion of marginalized populations. For collaboration to succeed, it must be anchored in an ideologically cohesive network of stakeholders, with civil society organizations acting as political advocates for disadvantaged groups. Drawing on fieldwork conducted in 2018–2022, we compare asylum policies in two Italian cities: Bologna and Venice. Despite rising far-right politics nationally, Bologna’s collaborative governance persisted thanks to the sustained commitment of local officials and civil society actors, all sharing ideological and strategic motivations in promoting refugee rights. In contrast, anti-migrant politics has increasingly informed the policy agenda of Venice elected officials. The politicization of immigration offered them powerful incentives to wipe out long-established collaborations and to frame refugees as undeserving policy targets, leading to their exclusion from public services. These findings extend to other geographical contexts and policy sectors, calling for a more political understanding of collaborative local governance