Does the European city model still exist? To what extent do cities make the difference in their citizens’ life, and to what extent do social policies contribute to differentiate cities? This book edited by Costanzo Ranci, Taco Brandsen, and Stefania Sabatinelli is the result of a comparative European project and deals with these questions, using empirical material from twenty European cities of different sizes (from medium to very small) and levels of international and national connectivity in ten countries. The authors use a large amount of secondary data, including the Urban Audit database, and collected original material through 360 in depth interviews.

I immediately bring forward the answers offered to these questions. The European city model is under transformation (this is not a novelty), but it is still very much alive. Despite the new social risks brought about by the transformations undergone in Western societies in many fields, and in spite of the neoliberal policies, the process of privatization, and the austerity measures, social policies at the national and local level in all European cities, even though to a different extent, have kept the polarization process under control (Ch.2 and Ch.10). This is the first important contribution of the book: the distinctiveness of the European social model is still there.

The second significant aspect of the book refers to the importance of the levels of scale in social policies. Local policies make a difference only if they do not need to replace national welfare and if the two are tightly and virtuously inter-related. It is the national welfare state, where the cities are embedded, that makes the difference. All chapters attempt to cluster the local welfare systems (LWS), and the result is always the same; LWS tend to reproduce quite coherently the nation based welfare regimes. By consequence, the South European cities (Milan and Brescia, Barcelona and Pamplona) always find themselves in the ‘fragmented’ or ‘vulnerable’ or ‘medium-low’ cluster, while the Northern ones always find themselves in the ‘inclusive’ or ‘innovative’ one.

The editors argue that the local level is relevant, but it can make a positive difference only in certain conditions. What are these conditions? The book confirms the already existing literature on this point: guaranteeing of a national citizenship framework; clear allocation of responsibilities and resources that minimize overlaps and gaps in interventions while enhancing accountability; local bodies called to design and plan policy measures not simply provide them; mobilization and participation of all local actors, not only the institutional ones. When the local level is called upon to intervene in a confused institutional framework, in the absence of resources and within a generalized lack of national interventions, as is often the case for South European (Italy and Spain – but even more Greece, which is not present in this book) or Transitional (Poland and Croatia) welfare models, local welfare manages to slap a band aid only on marginal situations, intervening when social vulnerability has often already turned into poverty.

This is not to say that all cities are equal – it would be nonsense. Every chapter highlights the specificity of each city and the word ‘heterogeneity’ is probably one of the most used in the book to define the twenty cities. The editors in the last chapter remind us that ‘social cohesion configurations are filtered by locally specific social, demographic, economic and policy features giving rise to more differentiated results’ (p. 291), but the argument is clear: there is a strong national constraining pattern.

This conclusion has very important policy implications, and deserves great attention, most of all by national policy makers. They are increasingly tempted to get rid of, or strongly cut, social policies at the national level under the rhetoric of vertical subsidiarity – e.g. welfare provisions should be constructed at the lowest possible scale, which permits the most practical provision of effective social protection – and the concrete pressure of financial constraints imposed by the austerity measures. The book reaffirms the importance of the State, even if it is under re-arrangement.

To arrive at these conclusions, the book is conceptually structured around three axes: how places are affected by new social risks creating social vulnerability; how policies deal with social vulnerability; how people are affected by social vulnerability, and hopefully, protected by social policies. The effort is to combine macro trends, and micro effects. Social vulnerability is the glue that binds the chapters. Despite the fact that some of the editors and authors have already published much on the concept, the definition of social vulnerability fluctuates – it is a compromise reached by ten research teams, and many scholars! It is in turn defined as ‘a situation of economic stress and uncertain financial position accompanied by a marked reduction in the standard of living’ (p. 17) or ‘not a state of material deprivation but a situation of instability in a context of harsh constraint with one or more systems of social integration’ (p. 190). Leaving aside the discrepancies in the definition, it is clear that vulnerability entails a condition of instability and precariousness. It is spreading in all European cities – even more so as a consequence of the economic crisis – and is hitting a larger portion of the middle classes, in particular the adult children of the middle classes who can have problems in one or more of the four social integration spheres identified in the book: labour market, housing market, family structure, migration.

The volume is composed of ten chapters – including the introduction and conclusion – that delve deeper into each of these spheres. The first two chapters illustrate the main macro trends in Europe and in the regions where the twenty cities under analysis are located, so as to set the background for understanding the empirical results. Chapter 1 (by d'Ovidio and Ranci) tests the relationship between economic competitiveness and social cohesion in European cities. The chapter presents a very rich literature review on global cities, on the dualization thesis, and economic competitiveness – very useful as a didactic tool – and it shows that cities performing better from an economic point of view do not necessarily score better as far as social cohesion is concerned and vice versa. Mutatis mutandis, this is the same argument about economic competitiveness (capitalism?) and democracy that we are currently experiencing, and that is questioning the social foundations of Western societies.

Chapters three to six examine the policies and actors involved in the provision of welfare benefits in the four spheres. One common conclusion of this part is the importance of the different actors, private and public, in providing services and the importance of the participation of citizens/migrants in the services targeted to them. Access and participation in provisions are two important features for active welfare policies, and make the difference for their effectiveness.

Chapters seven to nine take the view of vulnerable people, focusing on precarious young adults, single mothers and migrants. I would like to mention two complementary points for this part of the book: one is the importance of the institutional dimension/status in shaping strategies and trajectories; the other one is the importance of agency in dealing with precariousness and instability.

The first point is clearly visible for migrants. The authors of Chapter 9 (Sando Cattacin and Patricia Naegeli) stress that migration is not a condition of vulnerability per se, it can be one of the many risk factors. What makes the difference for migrants is the status they have in the hosting country, and the reasons for migration: political refugees, family reunification, work permits. The worst situation appears to be the one of the refugees as they often accumulate and face a mix of social, psychological and health problems even though they can have easier access to some services (e.g. housing). In all cities, even though to different extents, public social services do not manage to meet these migrants’ needs; public services are perceived as ‘controllers’, ‘too rigid and bureaucratic’, ‘not understanding their sufferings’. Migrants feel much more confident with private (not for profit) services, often involving migrants themselves as ‘cultural mediators’. For migrants, local welfare can make the difference, depending on whether and how a net of formal and informal, official and unofficial, private and public services exists and is arranged.

The second point is clearly visible with young adults. In a condition of instability and precariousness, young people do not often manage to build a continuous and coherent career. The authors of Chapter 7 (Stefania Sabatinelli and Lara Maestripieri) stress that what is protecting these people from fragmentation, distress, and giving up is having a specific professional plan, and in general a strategy for the future (p. 215). When young people have a specific personal and professional plan, they are more careful in choosing the right opportunities, they are more active in their actions for (professional and personal) autonomy, and more resilient in facing negative events or ‘simply’ bad luck, which often plays a role in the accounts of these people. To put it differently, having a dream is an important counteragent against vulnerability. Yet, the capacity of having a personal or professional plan, of dreaming for a better future, is not only an individual ability: it requires cognitive as well as social abilities, and a favourable context. This means a context allowing individuals to try and experiment with what their vocations are, without the stigma of failure, and where individuals think their dreams can become reality thanks to experimentation. This is precisely where local welfare can make the difference. Through activation programs (e.g. education, training, job experiences) local welfare can foster and support experimentation both at the individual and institutional level, creating a favourable context.