Urbanities,
Vol. 3
·
No 2
·
November 2013
© 2013
Urbanities
37
between Sicily and Calabria. In 1982, the ‘Stretto di Messina S.p.A.’ company was
established, and was appointed by the Italian government to plan, build and manage the
Bridge. IRI, a government-owned industrial holding, was the majority shareholder of the
‘Stretto di Messina S.p.A.’, while Regions accessed minor shares. From the start, the
construction of the Bridge appeared to be a central Government top-down decision and what
happened in the subsequent years is widely known (Angelini 2010, Bottari 2009, Marino
2010). Here, we want to address the social aspects related to this ‘unrealized Bridge’;
therefore, as Mollica shows (2012), it is important to consider the long and turbulent history
of public communication in relation to the potential socio-economic impact of the Bridge on
the local communities. In particular, the institutional communication that has been generated
to justify the infrastructure continues to influence the debate among the public on a facility
that was imagined and discussed but never built. The social-political events connected to the
Messina Bridge have produced extensive scientific and journalistic disputes. Several aspects
have been explored (environmental, economic, normative, technological, and so on.) and
some questions have been asked, such as: Why has it been decided to build this major
infrastructure? What are the political reasons, the economic interests and the strategies behind
this action? These questions have certainly raised great interest, but most studies have
addressed only a few aspects of the problem, and in a fragmented way. From a sociological
viewpoint there are still many questions to be answered; for instance: What institutional
method was chosen in order to mitigate the potential conflict among the stakeholders? What
are the spaces created to discuss the Bridge with local citizens? Finally, if there is no room for
negotiation between public decision-makers and the civil local society, what are the outcomes
of these choices? The study of these issues may offer insights that go beyond the case study
and contribute to the broader debate on development paths and the underlying decision-
making models (Baert, Koniordos, Procacci and Ruzza 2012).
To analyse the social and institutional elements that mark the history of ‘the Bridge’
means to expose the idea of development stemming from modernist thought (Berger 1974,
Caillé 1988, Folliet 1950, Mumford 1934). In spite of widespread criticism, this model of
governance in respect to development continues to be dominant among Italian political
decision-makers. Therefore, the hypothesis from which we started our investigation was that
the Messina Bridge embodies a development model that relies on systemic legitimization,
meaning an imposition of political decision on local social life that would be legitimized only
by the economic benefits calculated by the Government.
The Different Interests at Stake
Recently, the significance of the Bridge has increased following two legislative events. First,
the Berlusconi governments removed several political and financial stumbling blocks to the
start of construction. Thus, an infrastructure that would connect Sicily to mainland Italy has
been transformed from a utopian idea into a feasible project. In this context, the ‘Stretto di
Messina S.p.A.’ was used as promoter in the negotiation processes regarding the planning and
execution of the project, involving local Administrations and private actors, such as
companies. The managing director of the ‘Stretto di Messina S.p.A.’ is the link between the
