Food insecurity and changes in social citizenship. A comparative study of Rome, Barcelona and Athens

The economic crises in the last decade, the peak reached by food and energy prices in 2008, and the recent health and social crisis caused by the spread of Covid-19, have helped to highlight the fragility of the food system, redrawing the boundaries of the ‘geography of food security’ (Sonnino 2016). Indeed, all these events have highlighted the extent to which food deprivation is not only connected with a lack of food available on the market, and not only affects poor and rural areas, but that it is a pervasive problem in wealthy societies in the North of the world too, linked to social, political and institutional factors.

In Europe, for example, a combination of recession, austerity measures, welfare reforms, rising unemployment (Loopstra et al.2015; Matsaganis 2014), and refugees crisis (Cabot 2018; Fernando and Giordano 2016), has led to a dramatic increase in the proportion of people living in poverty and social exclusion, with 58 million forced into a condition of food insecurity (Eurostat 2019).

Food insecurity is deeply rooted in social inequalities (Sen 1981, 1999; Mendes and Sonnino 2018), emerging as a potential factor of exclusion and ‘social expulsion’ (Sassen 2015). While classical sociology (Sorokin 1922) had thematized food deprivation as a problem connected to social inequality, today, with the new forms it is taking on, and the centrality of the economic discourse, it is appropriate to bring it back to the centre of sociological analysis.

Although the creation of sustainable and inclusive food systems – for alternative production and consumption methods to the industrial food system – has attracted the attention of the literature in the last decade (Lang and Barling, 2012; Fonte and Quieti 2018; Forno and Graziano 2014), little has been said about the underlying social processes and relational dynamics, by raising the question of social citizenship.¹

In the sociological sense, social citizenship is not limited to its formal legal status but refers to the processes of social participation (Marshall 1950; Turner 1993) and, therefore, arising as a source of collective identity (Gerbaudo 2017:' 36–50).

In the context of societies characterised by market economies and welfare institutions, it is an instrument of social inclusion, assuming a function of decommodification of individual and collective wellbeing (Crouch 1999; Giddens 2020; Therborn 2009; Leonardi and Scalise 2016). But the adoption of neo-liberal policies has led to a transformation of social citizenship (Turner 2017), towards increasingly conditional and individualised forms of citizenship, the so called ‘responsible citizenship’, which is the symptom of a residual welfare state (Kourachanis 2020), in which, rights are deprioritised compared to obligations, and people are required to produce their wellbeing themselves.

Following the repeated crises of 2008 and 2012, the increased precariousness of forms of life, the growth of inequalities and the increasing presence of migrants and refugees alongside the indigenous population, has also given rise to forms of ‘citizenism’ which «attempt to make institutions responsive to those citizens they are supposed to represent» (Gerbaudo 2017:’ 21), and thus, to forms of humanitarian citizenship based on «the double precarization of social rights (afforded to ‘citizens’) and human rights (afforded to ‘aliens’)» (Cabot 2018: 7). This article, therefore, tackles food insecurity by challenging the problematization that privileges the domains of the market, production and consumption in defining food insecurity in relation to social citizenship. The purpose is to analyse how food security initiatives affect changes in social citizenship differently, highlighting the agency of social actors and the value of food practices in cultural and convivial terms (Illich 1972), as essential components of the interplay between food and social citizenship.

A particular emphasis is dedicated to the emotional dynamics that contribute to shaping the relationship between food and social citizenship, since «the emotional logics help interrogate the substance of social relations and structures instead of reifying them. The emotions act as an analytical tool for linking individual experience to broader social trends, without claiming the ontological nature of the social and cultural or the individual» (Lynn-Ee Ho 2009: 789). The focus, here, is on the emotional dimension of citizenship, analysing the generative connections established between citizenship, institutions and entitliments.

The first part of the article analyses the link between food and social citizenship. This is investigated with a focus, on the one hand, on the social exclusion processes triggered by situations of food insecurity. It looks at the multidimensionality and intersectionality that food insecurity assumes in urban contexts of societies, where well-being is widespread and welfare systems are in place, but challenged by repeated economic crises. On the other hand, it deals with social citizenship initiatives which refer to actions undertaken by associations and civil society organisations seeking to introduce missing entitlements into social citizenship, in order to actually make it effective. Therefore, the focus is on those social citizenship initiatives – to combat food insecurity – capable of establishing a virtuous relationship between autonomy and social participation.

The second part of the article introduces the research carried out on three food security initiatives in Rome, Barcelona and Athens, analyzing which initiatives promote social inclusion, the strengthening of bonds, people's agency, affecting changes in social citizenship.

The main results of the research reveal not only a different problematization of food insecurity – in terms of social citizenship – in different contexts, but also different ways in which, the social exclusion and relational poverty processes related to food deprivation can be modified, to trigger mechanisms of social participation and inclusion.

Access to food is not only a matter of the availability of goods on the market and, therefore, of provisions, but also of entitlements, as Amartya Sen (1981)² showed in his studies on starvation and famine deaths. In fact, people are often unable to procure food, not because of a market shortage, but because of obstacles resulting from extra-economic factors, which can be traced back to social norms and entitlements, and cultural and institutional processes.

The concept of social citizenship, thus, acquires a liquid meaning, in its capacity to respond not only to the continuous changes and challenges of the social and political system, but also to a concrete rootedness in the empirical reality which is strongly connected to the practices that social actors are able to build every day. Starting from this perspective of analysis, it is possible to extend the horizons of social citizenship to a key dimension of wellbeing: the access to food. This relationship between food and social citizenship makes it possible to point the analysis of food insecurity both to the individual and the collective levels.

At the individual level, it implies people's substantive freedom and autonomy to adopt the food behaviours they consider most appropriate, not only in line with their nutritional needs. In fact, there are many cultural, social and emotional meanings linked to food and eating practices (Illich 1972; Bourdieu 1979; Lupton 1996). People feed ‘not only on protein, fat, carbohydrates, but also on symbols, myths, fantasies' (Fischler 1980: 937). Food is not only a survival tool, but a medium of relationships and social networks which contribute to people and places’ cultural identification (Loda et al.2020; Hyde 2014). At the individual level, therefore, the relationship between food and social citizenship leads to a focus on agency, and on choices that have value for those who make them.

The collective dimension of the relationship between food and social citizenship, implies the ability to act (individually and collectively) to intervene on political and structural decisions related to the production, distribution and consumption models. The focus is on the role of civil society actors that promote changes (Crow 2002; Dobson 2003; Appadurai 1990, 2014) and on forms of cooperation and social solidarity that allow the regulation of conflictual situations that revolve around food (un)availability.

Indeed, as Cardoso (2002: 234) has pointed out, analyzing the multidimensional relationship linking entitlements (understood as legitimate access modes), provisions (adequate availability of goods) and ligatures (significant links and motivations) (Dahrendorf 1993) which are crucial in order to explore the nature and effects of social citizenship initiatives. The social citizenship initiatives are assumed, in this work, as those actions undertaken by associations and civil society organisations to make social citizenship effective by integrating the missing entitlements, starting from food related entitlements.

Social citizenship initiatives, or as Dahrendorf (2011) would describe them as the ‘creative chaos’, move away from a mere philanthropic impulse to encompass a transformative perspective (Papadaki and Kalogeraki 2018) to be implemented through ‘direct social actions’ (Zamponi and Bosi 2018). These actions include, for example: food banks, solidarity purchasing groups, alternative finance, free medical and legal services, free pharmacies (Rakopoulos 2018; Forno and Graziano 2014; Bernaschi, and Crisci 2018).

In claiming rights and resources, these initiatives adopt both an approach of ‘counter-power’ (Busso and Rivetti 2012), and thus, a conflictual one, as well as, a more collaborative perspective with other initiatives and public institutions, through which, they arise from a ‘niche’ dimension and gain social effectiveness.

Social citizenship initiatives, integrating the missing entitlements and claiming for social rights (Turner 2017), make citizenship effective, achieving results that would otherwise be inaccessible at the individual level (Rauschmayer et al.2015; Ibrahim 2017; Etzioni 1993), due to the lack of a system of rights/resources and legal channels, through which, to accomplish them. While aiming to improve the living conditions of those in a situation of social marginality (Tiryakian 2009), they give voice to those who do not have one (Appadurai 2014), thereby, strengthening these people's agency and affecting a different emotional response to a state of deprivation.

The relational and emotional dimensions of the condition of food insecurity, and the responses put in place by initiatives to combat food insecurity, are analysed here in their ability to create a virtuous connection between food and social citizenship, by making them an integral part of the process of agency and social participation. This provides an interesting ground from which to start an alternative study on the nature of this problem, which is increasingly pervasive in affluent societies – governed by neoliberal principles – through reflection on possible intervention actions to reformulate the relationship between food and social citizenship.

This article aims to describe, understand and contextualise the states of food insecurity experienced by food aid recipients of different civil society initiatives. Through a comparative analysis, it aims to bring out the different drivers of food insecurity and the different impact the structuring of food aid can generate on the recipients’ lives. In more detail, the focus of this article is on the ways and forms, in which, food insecurity manifests itself and triggers changes in the construction of social citizenship practices in three urban areas in Southern Europe: Rome, Barcelona and Athens.

The comparative method – based on case studies – is context-dependent compared to statistical samples, thus yielding knowledge that is nuanced and specific (Flyvbjerg 2004: 422) and comparable with other similar contexts (O'Connell and Brannen 2021). Here, the three contexts are examined in terms of ‘levels’ – macro, meso and micro – adopting the comparative method for each level.

Taking into account the different social, institutional and relational context, the main research question is: which initiative promotes social inclusion, the strengthening of bonds, people's agency, affecting changes in social citizenship?

To answer this question, empirical research was carried out in Rome (Italy), Barcelona (Spain) and Athens (Greece), between March 2017 and June 2019. This choice has been made for these countries, not only because they often appear – in the literature – to be associated with a ‘Southern European’ welfare model or with a ‘familistic welfare capitalism’ (Ferrera 1996; Papadopoulos and Roumpakis 2013), but mainly because, according to Eurostat's data (2019), they show an increase in the number of people who suffer from food deprivation.³

In addition, Italy, Spain and Greece, and in particular Rome, Barcelona and Athens boast an extensive history of alternative food networks and social citizenship initiatives in general. Indeed, the main literature contributions emphasises a direct relationship between economic/social/humanitarian crises, on the one hand, and the increase in the number of initiatives that aim to ‘collectively’ address the effects of the crisis on social cohesion and inequalities, on the other hand (Rakopoulos 2018; Papadaki and Kalogeraki 2018; Gerbaudo 2017; D’Alisa et al.2015; Kousis et al.2018).

Thus, several crises have challenged the traditional anti-poverty programmes, and stimulated the involvement of different social actors (i.e. local governments, private foundations, cooperatives, solidarity initiatives, informal networks, trade unions) in the development of new welfare structures: solidarity pharmacies, solidarity supermarkets, social gardens, social canteens (Kantzara 2014; Forno and Graziano 2014; Bernaschi 2020; Kousis 2017; Simiti 2015).

The multiple economic crises and the austerity measures have had a twofold impact. Firstly, they have prompted formal initiatives to seek funding at the European and the philanthropic foundations level (Sotiropoulos and Bourikos 2014). Secondly, a strengthening of horizontal cooperation between civil society initiatives, as well as, the vertical cooperation with local governments, emerges.

The key role played by the ‘local’ dimension emerges strongly also thanks to the influence of the social movements arose in the wake of the Indignados Movement in Spain which, between 2011 and 2012, began to claim the need to act concretely at the local level, highlighting the crucial role of a collaborative relationship designed ‘on a local scale’ between civil society initiatives and local governments (Cruz et al.2017; Cabot 2018; Forno and Graziano 2014).

The socio-economic-institutional context provides stimuli for collective action, shaping its nature. Indeed, according to the European research LIVEWHAT⁴ (2016), analysing more than 4000 initiatives in Europe, 52.7% of the sample deals with basic needs (e.g. distribution of food and clothing, housing support for the homeless, medical services, free legal support, anti-eviction initiatives, aid groups for women, children and refugees). Nevertheless, there are some peculiarities, for example, in Italy, initiatives related to alternative consumption prevail (56%), in Greece 63% of the initiatives deals with basic needs, and in Spain 63.2% with alternative economic activities (e.g. alternative currencies, barter systems, low-price goods and services distribution systems).

On the basis of these premises, the research has focused on three large urban areas with very different socio-economic and institutional backgrounds: Rome, Barcelona and Athens.

Concerning the process to select the city-based case studies, it was preceded by an extensive exploratory analysis of the three different urban contexts, which made use of the contribution of privileged witnesses.⁵ They were selected through the snowball procedure and highlighted the different types of social problems and the different legal channels for accessing resources and rights in the three cities.

This initial phase was followed by the choice of the initiatives to put to further investigation: the Caritas Emporium of Solidarity in Rome; the Solidarity Card, a project shared but managed independently by the municipality and Caritas association, in Barcelona; and the Kipoda NGO Solidarity Kitchen in Athens.

The selected initiatives are either formalised or institutionalised in nature, and are characterised by a different problematization of food insecurity and, therefore, can enrich research in a comparative perspective.

Moreover, significant initiatives were chosen for each case study, thus Caritas with its link to the Catholic Church plays a key social role in Spain and Italy, while Kipoda is assumed as the functional equivalent of Caritas in the Greek context, indeed its work is a reference point manly for the western area of Athens (which historically suffers greater social problems). In any case, as will be explained below, the same Caritas organisation gives rise to diverse initiatives in the two cities considered – Barcelona and Rome – operating in completely different institutional and social contexts.

To capture the bottom-up processes, the research adopts an interpretative approach that recognises the reality as socially constructed, highlighting the central role of the cultural and institutional context in which people act (Patton 2011). Starting from this basis and considering the vulnerability of the interviewees, and their difficulty of sharing a state of deprivation often experienced for the first time in their lives, particular attention was paid to the language and types of approach used, as well as, to creating socialisation rituals that could put them at ease, without undermining the expression of their life story (Hammersley and Atkinson 1995; Riessman 1993). As a result, the beneficiaries of the initiatives let themselves go – to different extents – and narrated their life stories, sharing painful events (often violent ones) that had deeply marked them.

Qualitative data collection methodologies, such as participant observation⁶, and semi-structured in- depth interviews with the coordinators and beneficiaries of the initiatives were adopted based on a ‘convenience and purposive sampling strategy’ (Patton 2002). A total of 110 qualitative interviews (including the contributions of privileged witnesses) were recorded.⁷

The interview traces aim to highlight the differences in the conception and perspectives of food aid and food supply by coordinators and beneficiaries, considering the different – socially defined – power role they play within the initiative (Turner and Stets 2005; Elias 1978; Scheff 2000).

The qualitative analysis of the collected data was carried out, using computer-assisted research methods. To this end, the research was supported by NVivo software⁸ which not only enables the management and archiving of the collected data, thus defeating some of the complexities of qualitative research, but also the creation of links and definition of interpretative hypotheses.⁹

In Rome, the Solidarity Emporium of Caritas is embedded in a context in which inequalities present a strong ‘territorial’ (Lelo et al.2019) and ‘social’ connotation, in which unskilled workers and the middle class struggle with social exclusion and a rising cost of living (De Muro et al.2012).

These social difficulties are compounded by the deficiencies of the political and institutional system (overwhelmed – in 2014 – by the case of collusion with some criminal organisations), which essentially lead to the delegation of the monitoring and resolution of social problems to the social citizenship initiatives.

The Emporium of Solidarity (in Italian ‘Emporio della Solidarietà’) was founded in Rome in 2008 by Caritas, the pastoral organisation of the Italian Episcopal Conference.

Until that time, the Caritas in Rome seems to have been accessed only by those in conditions of extreme poverty (migrants, homeless people, psychiatric patients), but the effects of the crisis imposed a change in its aid programmes. The growing number of people who could not afford food – due to job losses or insufficient wages – induced Caritas to think of a different initiative since, for several reasons, including a deep feeling of shame, families who found themselves in a situation of serious deprivation for the first time, would never have queued up at a traditional soup kitchen.

The aim of the Emporium is to overcome the social stigma linked to soup kitchens and food parcels, so that people can be helped sooner rather than later. Indeed, people tend to postpone asking for help, first looking for alternative ways to the charity, and only seeking aid in times of extreme desperation, out of a sense of shame.

«Often families try everything before they come to us, and sometimes they arrive here when it's too late. It's essential to create an environment in which people feel a sense of normality, and lower the level of shame, distrust and fear, so that people will come to us earlier, before they have no choice. These people need a serious project to get them out of poverty» (Secretary of Caritas Rome).

The Emporium is structured like a real supermarket, in order to recreate an environment of normal everyday life, where families enter and shop and choose what to buy, in a logic of strengthening their agency. A points card is needed to shop at the Emporium, with the amount of points depending entirely on the number and composition of the household.

The Emporium links the issue of food insecurity to the surpluses of the production system. Indeed, beyond products donated through FEAD (Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived), the Emporium gathers food from the large-scale distribution channel (products which are close to expiry or present packaging defects which make them unmarketable), as well as, from the food collections¹⁰ and food donations from social cooperatives employing socially disadvantaged people (e.g. ex-prisoners, disabled people).

The Emporium is one of the forms of aid offered by Caritas, together with others, which are complementary, such as job seeking support, Italian classes for foreigners, free medical care, help in the payment of domestic utilities and protection against exploitative moneylending.

While Rome is marked by a weak involvement of local public institutions, Barcelona experiences a completely different social context, in which, the effects of the economic crisis on unskilled workers, rising unemployment, and rising housing costs have triggered a strong synergy between social citizenship initiatives and local public institutions.¹¹

Besides a monitoring work by the Municipality, regarding the structure of inequalities within the different districts of Barcelona, there is a ‘Citizenship Agreement’¹², in which, the social dimension of citizenship is central for the inclusion strategy.

The Solidarity Card (in Spanish ‘Tarjeta Solidaria’) is a credit card given by the social services which can be used for the purchase of basic necessities. Social workers decide whether to assign the card¹³, after carefully assessing the situation. The amount and duration of the aid is based on the number of family members, income and expenses. The card can be used in any supermarket, or neighbourhood shop, that has an agreement with the project.

The idea of the Solidarity Card started in 2013, inspired by the Milan Caritas ‘Carta Equa’ (Fair Card) project, thanks to the joint determination of the municipality and Barcelona Caritas to find alternative projects to tackle the food insecurity issue.

«People in Barcelona go to street markets, to small grocery stores. Here in Barcelona, there are many migrants who buy food at their Halal shops» (Caritas Solidarity Card Coordinator).

«We decided to find a way to help people in a dignified way (…) giving people the freedom to choose what to eat, the freedom to buy fresh products» (Municipality Solidarity Card Coordinator).

While the Emporium was founded with the aim of overcoming the social stigma of food parcels and soup kitchens, the promoters of the Solidarity Card consider it an appropriate instrument to tackle the shame felt by people, who have always been economically independent and self-sufficient in their hour of need. The card gives its aims to let beneficiaries the chance not to alter their eating habits and, above all, not to feel ‘poor’ and different from the others.

«We didn't like the Emporium of Solidarity project because it's a place for the poor. What we wanted was a project that considers the poor the same as other people. We wanted them to continue shopping in the place they went to before, to buy what they wanted and when they wanted it» (Caritas Solidarity Card Coordinator).

The Solidarity Card aims to promote a change of mentality, so that the ‘poor’ are not looked at as people unable to exercise their faculty of choice, but as people able to define their own needs. This shift in mentality involves a process of recognition, that can be met by reticence among those, who are used to interpreting food aid only in terms of meal distribution and, therefore, of ‘giving’ food to the neediest.

«People prefer to give material products to people in need, instead of money because, in this way, they’re the ones who control and decide what the people need» (Caritas Solidarity Card Coordinator).

The Solidarity Card is the expression of a sense of ‘social co-responsibility’ towards people living in a situation of marginality. It is a co-responsibility that Caritas and the municipality intend to intensify and extend it through a project that will allow people, who shop with their own money, to donate a percentage to support the project of the ‘solidarity cards’, thus allowing people ‘in need’ to continue shopping in their same supermarket. The exercise of one's ‘individual freedom’ (in this case, to go shopping) is linked to the exercise of solidarity in terms of ‘social responsibility’ and social inclusion.

The card is one of a complex system of measures aimed at helping people to overcome their difficulties, through social inclusion and strengthening agency.

The economic crisis, austerity measures, the humanitarian crisis related to refugee arrivals, together with a very visible spike in homelessness, addictions and diseases – mainly tuberculosis and HIV – (Karanikolos and Kentikelenis 2016), have led to a deterioration in people's living conditions (Matsaganis 2014).

What emerges is a social context marked by deep deprivation, in which, the absence of the central state is counterbalanced by the action of local public institutions (Sotiropoulos and Bourikos 2014), shipowners’ foundations (e.g. Niarchos Foundation) and social citizenship initiatives. Such actions are entirely geared towards the satisfaction of basic needs (LIVEWHAT 2016): distribution of clothes, free medicines and medical examinations, community social canteens, support for migrants/refugees.

Kipoda (acronym of Kinissi Politon Dytikis Athinas, translated as: ‘Citizens’ Movement of Western Athens’) was founded in 2000. Over the years, it has modified its organisational structure, adapting it to the needs of citizens. From being a ‘civil service association’ involved in blood donation campaigns and the organisation of cultural events, in 2012 – under the pressure of the devastating effects of the economic crisis – Kipoda became a non-governmental organisation with structures and services to help people.

The main services that Kipoda offers are: the solidarity kitchen, the pantopolio (solidarity shop), the solidarity pharmacy and the social service. Beneficiaries must choose whether to use the pantopolio or the kitchen, while the pharmacy and social service are available to everyone.

Access to Kipoda's services is conditioned by the documentation of certain income requirements¹⁴ and the assessment of other conditions such as, for example, the composition of the household, whether or not they are homeowners, expenses (including medical expenses) and debts. Once it has understood the people's problems and needs, the Kipoda social service acts as a mediator and directs them to the appropriate services, for example, by putting them in contact with the public employment agency (in Greek ‘OAED’) or other non-governmental organisations.

The pharmacy, the kitchen and the pantopolio offer items donated by individuals and companies, therefore, they form a circuit which sets social value by surplus basic goods. The main difference between the kitchen and the pantopolio is that, in the latter, people can go once a month and take a parcel prepared for them (with products donated by the municipality, supermarkets, individuals, shipowners’ associations), which generally covers the needs of one or two weeks.

The kitchen, on the other hand, distributes meals once a day, six days a week. The canteen opens at 10:45 am and closes at 1:30 pm. The delivered meals can be ready-made or to be cooked. It only works as a distribution point, where the beneficiaries go to collect meals for themselves and their families. Every day, 52 families pick up their meals from the canteen (the meals are for 111 people), while another 85 families only use the service two/three times a week.

In Rome, research has shown that the Emporium's main beneficiaries are families (mostly with minors) and adults over 65 years of age. The sample reached is very heterogeneous: They are people from both the working class and lower-middle class, sometimes with an entrepreneurial history behind them. Most of the beneficiaries have an education that varies from high school to university level. The significant presence of immigrants – from other European and non-European countries – enriches the analysis framework.

Regarding the Solidarity Card, the beneficiaries interviewed are mostly Spanish women over 55, single or divorced, with children who are minors. The analysis framework is enriched by the presence of foreign respondents, who have been living in Spain for more than ten years. The sample reached shows very similar characteristics in terms of social backgrounds: they are all people whose native family, with an elementary education, has the same social structure: a working-class father and a housewife mother.

The interviewees have levels of education that vary from primary school to university level. Through a reconstruction of their life trajectories, a prevalence emerges of both domestic and care occupations, freelancers and salaried workers.

The beneficiaries of Kipoda are mostly greek, over 55, unmarried people living with their native family or divorced women with children. These are people from a working-class or entrepreneurial background. The native families have usually completed an elementary education, while the beneficiaries generally have an upper secondary level of schooling.

In Rome, Barcelona and Athens, food deprivation is driven by social and institutional factors, in which a lack of resources – especially in terms of income – is combined with a lack or fragile entitlements.

In Rome, the research reveals the difficulties experienced by over 50s in finding a new job following a break from work due to health problems, with no possibility of access to a replacement income. In addition to this, there are gender differences: on the one hand, resulting from the difficulties encountered by women in finding a job that allows them to take care of their children, and the segregation of migrant women restricted to work in the personal care sector; on the other hand, resulting from divorce, which is often the epilogue of violent relationships.

A compromised system and a lack of entitlements therefore emerges. Public institutions do not provide sufficient pensions, unemployment benefits (which cannot be accessed owing to previous irregular job positions), and stringent requirements to access minimum income benefits. This leads the interviewees to turn to family support networks and the Solidarity Emporium.

In Barcelona, the drivers are linked to health problems (which, in many cases, are the root cause of their job loss), the lack of work on offer, and also the cost of housing which forces people to share their accommodation with friends and tourists. Indeed, the inability to pay high rents results in the loss of privacy and housing space for single-parent families and people over 55, as they are forced to adopt sharing and, in some cases, protest solutions (e.g. collective illegal occupation of housing).

After losing their jobs, the interviewees received varying forms of integration of their lost income, such as, unemployment benefit, RAI¹⁵ or PIRMI.¹⁶ In addition to these measures, the Barcelona City Council also provides other aid for domestic utilities (in order to fight against energy poverty) and for rent.¹⁷

Although, there is a wide network of public aid, its fragmented nature and the lack of coordination, place limits on its actual use. Hence, the Solidarity Card slots into the gaps that are left uncovered.

Athens shares with the other two contexts the same drivers (unemployment, losing a job in old age, precarious and low-paid jobs), but presents an additional peculiarity: the debts incurred with banks and the social contribution system (EFKA in Greek) by self-employed professionals.

«I have debts with both banks and the EFKA. From an initial debt of 3,000 euros, it's reached 30,000 euros and I'm afraid they may take my house off me (…) I had a tobacco shop that I closed in 2013, due to the crisis» (Athens, woman, Greek, 52 years old, married, with children).

The interviewees turn to Kipoda because of either the lack (also due to irregular employment), or inadequacy (for example, long-term unemployment benefits of 200 euros per month), of public integration of lost income. The shortcomings of the public social system are contrasted by the important role of the native family, although most people interviewed are in their mid-fifties. Indeed, the interviews show how fundamental parents’ pensions are, in order to cope with growing economic difficulties.

All three initiatives analysed, seek to ensure that the dignity of the beneficiaries is preserved, by providing different arrangements.

The interviewees were confronted with the emotional challenge of recognising their own vulnerabilities, and the need to turn to food aid before, deciding to address the Emporium, the Solidarity Card or Kipoda. The feeling of shame is partly mitigated by the understanding, on the part of the interviewees, that their state of deprivation is shared by many people. Sometimes, this even fosters attitudes of solidarity towards others.

«Before the Solidarity Card, for 2 years, I received food aid from Caritas. Now, in the same place where I was helped, I want to help people who need it» (Barcelona, woman, Spanish, 65 years old, divorced, with children).

In Rome, beneficiaries’ feeling of shame was mitigated in part by an environment that aims to create a context of a typical supermarket and to socially integrate people with different types of fragilities (e.g. ex-convicts, disabled people); and, in part, by the volunteers’ work at the Emporium and their readiness to take care of them.

In Barcelona, the idea of a credit card that can be spent anywhere meets the different nutritional, cultural and convivial needs of the beneficiaries, thus weakening any potential feelings of shame.

Both Solidarity Card and Emporium of Solidarity's people interviewed, appreciate the possibility of being able to choose and buy food (albeit fictitiously in the case of the Emporium), because there is still a margin of autonomy which, in other forms of food aid such as food parcels or soup kitchens, does not exist.

While in Rome and Barcelona, in a different way, the aim is to avoid affecting people's purchasing social practices and their autonomy, in Athens, in order to mitigate the beneficiaries’ feeling of shame, Kipoda tries to establish timetables for picking up meals in advance, to avoid long queues that would put their vulnerability on display, and thus, protect their dignity.

In Rome and Athens, the issue of food insecurity is linked to food donations and to food surpluses in a circular form of economy, which appears as a ‘win-win’ strategy to alleviate both household food insecurity and food waste with its environmental cost of resource consumption. Some scholars criticise such approach of bridging food insecurity and food surpluses (Caplan 2017), pointing out that it can contribute to its normalisation by depoliticising and individualising food insecurity (Riches 2018; Papargyropoulou et al.2022; O’Brien 2014).

In addition to these social and political implications, the initiatives in Rome and Athens based largely on food surplus recovery, have an impact on the recipients’ feelings. Namely, the interviewees are mainly concerned with the quality of food received, and the impact of food aid, and the related shame and frustration on social and family bonds. Indeed, as consumers, the interviewees reveal their fear of being stigmatised by the type of products they have access to. While there is distinct satisfaction about the availability of ‘branded’ products, from a perspective of social recognition.

It is also crucial to consider the mistrust linked to the presence of food products close to their expiry date. In fact, despite a feeling of gratitude for the help received, a sense of shame prevails in feeling like the recipients of what is seen as ‘food waste’ that would, otherwise, end up in the rubbish.

«I need help, I don't want to get poisoned» (Rome, man, Italian, 53 years old, with children). The main Kipoda's beneficiaries concern is linked to the absence of any form of decision-making power over their diet, triggering an emotional state of discomfort and prevailing feelings of shame, embarrassment and a lack of dignity. A recurring element is the desire not to show the situation of insecurity to their children, and to avoid depriving them of certain foods that they love.

«My son doesn't know that I came here to the soup kitchen. When he comes home, everything is ready in the pot» (Athens, woman, Greek, 55 years old, divorced, with children).

«Last Thursday, I found sliced meats that I’d never be able to afford to bring to the children (she gets emotional), Parma ham, my daughter was so happy … even the little ones were so happy … so they can taste what other children taste» (Rome, woman, Ukrainian, 43 years old, divorced, with children).

The Emporium of Solidarity and Solidarity Card's beneficiaries highlighted the advantages of such initiatives in terms of expanding their agency, comparing them with other aid measures, such as soup kitchens or food parcels. Beneficiaries, who go to soup kitchens or receive food parcels, receive what has been prepared and decided by others. Therefore, this does not perfectly reflect their preferences or nutritional and cultural needs.

Moreover, while food parcels usually contain standard and long-life food, the Solidarity Card and the Emporium not only allow people to independently choose how to eat, but also to have a diversified diet and eat fresh products.

The interviews not only showed how much the beneficiaries’ diet has improved, meeting different nutritional needs, but also the positive emotional effects in terms of social recognition, overcoming the anxiety and humiliation related to the lack of self-sufficiency.

«The card has taken a weight off me, it's taken away the stress of not being able to do the shopping. Before the card, the important thing was that my daughter could eat well; now, thanks to the card, I can eat well too» (Barcelona, woman, Spanish, 55, single, with one child).

However, the main difference between the Solidarity Card and the Emporium lies on the restricted quantity and variety of the food on offer at the Emporium (linked to donations), which would affect nutritional (for beneficiaries with intolerances and allergies), cultural (linked to the beneficiaries’ religion or country of origin) and relational choices. In particular, women are more inclined to include friends and neighbours during family meals.

The mothers’ awareness of the relational-convivial dimension of food also emerges in the Greek context, although the ready-meals distributed by Kipoda are not sufficient, as well as, compromising the independence and self-esteem of the beneficiaries.

Although, the three initiatives analysed are all aimed at going beyond the mere food distribution (in order to trigger routes out of poverty, foster social inclusion and people's agency), their actual impact varies according to the socio-institutional context and the nature of the food aid provided. Indeed, especially in Rome and Barcelona, through a resource distribution system, the coordinators attempt to convert a condition of food shortage into a mechanism that can enable people to react – also emotionally – to their condition of need.

Both the Emporium and the Solidarity Card are one of the forms of aid offered, together with others, such as job seeking support, Italian or Spanish classes for foreigners, free medical care, help in the payment of domestic utilities, protection against exploitative moneylending, and a legal assistance centre for women. These two cases adopt a perspective based on the awareness that, the intervention for access to food is linked to other entitlements missing from the current social citizenship package, in the respective national and local contexts.

However, the impact in terms of social inclusion and strengthening agency varies considerably. Indeed, in Rome, the particular economic situation and the lack of cooperation with the local public institutions¹⁸ limit employment opportunities to only a few care sectors. As a result, the women's adaptive choices are pushed towards jobs that do not meet their expectations and clash with their family commitments: »I am enrolled in several Caritas centres to find a job, but it’s difficult because they’re looking for workers 24 h a day, and I can't do that, I have my 14-year-old daughter and two of my sister's kids who are 5 and 7 years old» (Rome, woman, Ukrainian, 43 years old, divorced, with children).

In Rome, the social citizenship initiative is severely compromised by the framework in which it is embedded, and a truncated citizenship is achieved. On the contrary, in Barcelona, a social citizenship emerges (in its full sociological meaning) in a nutshell, as a full participation in social life, while strengthening the emotional dimension of social inclusion and social recognition, and as an expression of individual autonomy reinforced by social bonds.

Indeed, the Solidarity Card strengthens the beneficiaries’ freedom of agency, on the one hand, by ensuring a diversified diet able to meet nutritional, emotional, cultural and convivial needs; on the other hand, by providing job-seeking services and new professional integration − facilitated by training courses − in line with the beneficiaries’ preferences and skills.

»I am also attending a job training course, a free course that will allow me to become a health care specialist. This course is free and is organised by the public employment agency, and at the end of it, I’ll also get paid» (Woman, Spanish, 45 years old, single, with children).

Kipoda differs from the previous initiatives substantially. The interviewees also benefit from the solidarity pharmacy and social service, but the help offered only meets the urgent need to give an immediate response to their requirements, with no long-term planning to activate social inclusion mechanisms. This is mainly due to both a lack of communication and collaboration with local public institutions, and a specific type of food assistance, which both go beyond the logic of solving an emergency in the short term. Thus, in Athens, a context of social emergency and the absence of long-term planning by the various social actors, lead to the emergence of a type of ‘humanitarian’ citizenship, where the dimension of pain and suffering become a condition for obtaining an entitlement which, as such, should be granted to all regardless of merit.

In order to understand the nature of food insecurity – within wealthy developed societies – the focus of the analysis needs to bring out the multidimensional relationship that links entitlements and resources to ligatures (Bernaschi 2020). Food insecurity, therefore, emerges as a question of life chances, and the relationship between food and social citizenship is central to this issue.

The research has highlighted what it means to live in a state of food deprivation in social contexts characterised by affluence and plentiful resources. Shame emerges as the main emotional feature of poverty (Sen 1999; Goffman 1988; McPherson 2006; Walker and Bantebya-Kyomuhendo 2014). The stigma linked to a condition of social fragility and a feeling of inferiority due to dependence on external aid, are at the basis of a deep feeling of humiliation and embarrassment (Horst et al.2014; Purdam et al.2016; McKeon 2015; Poppendieck 2014).

As shown by several research studies on food banks (McPherson 2006), people only ask for help when they are desperate, first trying alternative channels to charity, such as loans, help from their families, or even trying to limit personal consumption to ensure enough food for their children. Asking for food aid, is the last route that is taken (Lambie-Mumford and Dowler 2014; Tarasuk et al.2014).

The analysis of the relationship between food and citizenship shows that food is not only a means of survival, but a dimension of social and emotional meanings, people living in conditions of food insecurity, first of all, ask for recognition and respect (Sennett 2003).

As George Kent has argued «dignity comes not from being fed, but from being able to feed oneself» (2005: 46). However, as Douglas et al. (2015) highlight, a charitable perspective prevails in those social practices emphases a more needs-based perspective, and the basic idea that the food insecure people's needs can be addressed by feeding them. In this case, food as related to the lack of social citizenship entitlements, does not emerge as a central issue in the perspective adopted by the promoters.

Instead, food emerges as a relational lubricant and an instrument of autonomy; for this reason, food insecurity affects the process of building social identity and social citizenship (Poppendieck 1998), by compromising social cohesion in its deep sense.

The initiatives to combat food insecurity – that we have analysed – show how ‘food and social citizenship’ connect and have different emotional implications. In fact, the particular problem of food insecurity can elicit diverse responses, with different and sometimes conflicting outcomes on social citizenship. These responses can fuel or compromise people's capacity for autonomy and trust relationships and the ability to aspire to change their conditions of insecurity.

Often, they are people who have always had a job, but a devastating combination of social, personal and institutional factors has compromised their food autonomy, as shown by the drivers of food insecurity we find in Rome, Barcelona and Athens: rising unemployment rates, poorly paid precarious jobs and the absence or lack of public income support measures. In addition to this common feature, there are some local peculiarities: for example, in Rome the difficulties of finding work for the over 50s, or the problems encountered by women in finding jobs that allow them to combine their family commitments with employment, especially, where divorce emerges as a relational failure, or the work segregation of migrant women in the fields of personal care and work in the home. In Barcelona, on the other hand, we find high housing costs affecting the family budget and, in Athens, debts with EFKA and banks.

What all these cases have in common, is the lack of an adequate and universally accessible public social protection system. Faced with a situation of social fragility, the initiatives attempt to reconnect food and social citizenship. Both the Emporium and Solidarity Card adopt an approach that aims to go beyond the mere compensation of material needs, to instead promote social recognition, ligatures and agency through projects of participation and social inclusion. The beneficiaries of these initiatives continue to have a certain autonomy over their food practices, which seem to respond to their various preferences and needs (branded products, Halal or free-from products), although to different intensities.

In fact, in Rome, although the Emporium emerges as an environment in which people feel welcomed/included, the presence of products – retrieved from the waste circuit – amplifies their sense of inferiority, as well as, undermining their nutritional needs. Furthermore, the particular economic situation and the lack of cooperation with the local public institutions compromise triggering routes out of poverty and social exclusion. Indeed, a truncated citizenship emerges.

In Barcelona, the beneficiaries’ agency is strengthened both by fostering maximum freedom of choice in their diet, and by means of job placement paths – resulting from the joint endeavour of local public institutions and initiatives – aimed at re-establishing the conditions for social citizenship in its full sociological meaning. This experience also serves as a bottom-up stimulus to rebuild social citizenship – at the national level – inspiring a call for a policy more in line with emerging inequalities. In detail, the focus is on dignifying aid, through helping people gain access to any existing financial entitlements as the ‘first cash’ response to food insecurity (Burchi and Strupat 2016); at the same time, to stimulate institutions to give more entitlements and to respond to the demand for citizenship that comes from citizens.

The Kipoda solidarity kitchen in Athens, on the other hand, tackles the problem of food insecurity in emergency terms. Deprivation is addressed through the mere distribution of basic necessities. Mechanisms – including emotional ones – capable of reconnecting food to social citizenship through processes of social participation are lacking, thus affirming a form of humanitarian citizenship. The food products distributed by Kipoda amplify the sense of shame and inferiority connected to the state of deprivation, as they do not support the beneficiaries in active paths of social inclusion. The family, for those who have one, is still the refuge in which to seek protection.

Food has a strong value related not only to providing the nutrients for health, but it plays a crucial role in bridging social relationships, affirming social status, and it appears as a fundamental ‘psychosocial’ means by which people, especially mothers, are judged and judge themselves (O'Connell and Brannen 2021: 39). It follows that food insecurity becomes an explosive source of social exclusion, engendering anxiety, shame and social stigma. Nevertheless, food insecurity is rising sharply and at a worrying rate, even in opulent societies.

This article through an empirical comparative research in Rome (Italy), Barcelona (Spain) and Athens (Greece), has highlighted how – in the decade following the 2008 financial crisis – economic contraction and austerity measures, have affected low-resource and entitlement households. Using qualitative research methods, a comprehensive analysis made it possible to investigate how low income – combined with lacking/absent institutional social support measures – affects food security (with an important emotional impact and deprivation of social relations), prompting households to seek help from social citizenship initiatives.

Indeed, in the three case studies analysed, there is a clear lack of social citizenship entitlements linked to access to food. As result, people who are de jure citizens are actually socially excluded. Furthermore, the three cases investigated share contexts, in which, the familistic welfare state has never matured adequate social protection measures, to develop instruments for full individual autonomy from social and market constraints. In the three initiatives analysed, the food is free but there is a ‘hidden price’ that determines their ability to reconnect food to social citizenship, triggering mechanisms of social inclusion. Paying attention to the way people get and share food, is functional to the definition of the institutional and cultural models underlying social participation (Grasseni 2014; Bernaschi, and Crisci 2018). Moreover, by looking at the quality of food provided and its ability to meet different nutritional, convivial and social recognition needs, the analysis can also include the emotional dimension at the basis of a state of deprivation. Indeed, when people – who are food insecure – receive low quality food, it reflects on what they are actually worth in the eyes of others (Scotland and Commission 2018).

When the emotional dimension is compromised, this affects the process of social inclusion and thus the nature of citizenship, which turns into a ‘humanitarian citizenship’ aimed to satisfy the most urgent needs in a short-term perspective. In this article, initiatives against food insecurity are analysed in their contribution to building social citizenship – in its full sociological sense – when they promote the construction of voice processes (Appadurai 2014), enhancing the emotional dimension and citizenship in a perspective of social recognition and social inclusion. The construction of voice goes through the capacity of the initiatives to politically channel the demand for entitlements from their beneficiaries.

Such key elements of social citizenship in its full sociological meaning, stand out most strongly in the local case of Barcelona, which puts in place new entitlements, new ways of participation and a new way of connecting the institutions and the demand from below that comes from citizens. Indeed, for the Solidarity Card, food is not only a means to satisfy the most urgent needs, but also to strengthen people's capabilities and their social bonds. In Barcelona, the role played by social citizenship initiatives in tackling poverty and food insecurity is evident, thanks also to their ability to communicate/collaborate with local public institutions and other initiatives. The cooperative dimension is missing or tenuous in the other two cases analysed. In fact, in Rome, when cooperation with public institutions is missing, the Emporium's attempt to foster a process of outflow from poverty by its beneficiaries, is quite compromised; thus, a truncated citizenship emerges. In Athens, on the other hand, food remains a mere means of satisfying immediate needs, indeed, a construction of voice processes and dynamics of social recognition and social inclusion are not triggered, shaping a form of humanitarian citizenship.

Our sincere gratitude goes to the coordinators and beneficiaries of the Emporium of Solidarity in Rome, the Solidarity Card in Barcelona and the Kipoda's Solidarity Kitchen in Athens, for contributing to this research work. We are grateful to the three anonymous reviewers for their insightful feedback.

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Laura Leonardi, is professor of Sociology at the «Cesare Alfieri» School of Political Science at the University of Florence. Since 2016 to date, she is Director of the Jean Monnet Center of Excellence of the University of Florence. Her research interests are social inequalities and social citizenship, labour and welfare, social theory, the impact of globalization and europeanization on local societies.

Daniela Bernaschi, is a research fellow at the «Cesare Alfieri» School of Political Science at the University of Florence. She deals with social inequalities, food insecurity, and the role played by city-based initiatives in promoting sustainable and inclusive development.