The Paradox of Consensus in Food Policy Innovation: Insights from the Metropolitan City of Bologna

In an era marked by ecological transition and compounded crises, such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and food security challenges, agri-food policies are expected to confront and reconcile conflicting priorities. Theoretical and empirical research frequently emphasizes the inherent conflicts embedded in food policy reform, given the diverse and often competing interests among stakeholders. However, findings from twenty qualitative interviews conducted over the past three months with experts in the metropolitan city of Bologna suggest a surprising paradox: instead of encountering high levels of conflict, the preliminary evidence points to a relative absence of overt disputes within the food policy domain. This study seeks to interrogate this unexpected finding, asking: why is there a seeming lack of conflict in food policymaking in Bologna, particularly during a period of ecological transition when tensions are presumed to intensify? Additionally, what might this apparent consensus reveal about the modes of policy innovation in urban food systems? Drawing from interviews with diverse stakeholders - ranging from policymakers, food system entrepreneurs, and researchers to civil society actors - this research situates Bologna’s experience within broader theoretical frameworks of post-exceptionalism and policy innovation. Post-exceptionalism, which describes a transitional state where old and new paradigms coexist within agri-food governance, provides a lens to explore the interplay of continuity and change in Bologna’s food system policies. Rather than a simple dichotomy of conflict versus consensus, the findings suggest the presence of nuanced dynamics that influence policymaking processes. The preliminary results point to three interrelated explanations for the observed absence of conflict: 1) Fragmented policy narratives. While stakeholders express a shared commitment to sustainability goals, the ways these goals are framed and prioritized vary significantly. This fragmentation diffuses potential conflict, as divergent narratives may coexist without directly clashing. 2) Institutional Path Dependency. Bologna’s historical legacy of collaborative governance, particularly in areas such as public health and urban planning, appears to shape expectations and behaviors among stakeholders. These institutional norms may favor consensus-building processes, even at the cost of more radical or transformative policy shifts. 3) Conceptual Ambiguity Around Conflict. The findings raise questions about how conflict is perceived and operationalized in food governance. Is conflict necessarily overt, or can it manifest in subtler forms, such as the marginalization of certain voices or the reproduction of existing power dynamics? Addressing these questions may require rethinking both the theoretical and practical frameworks through which conflict is examined. By analyzing Bologna as a case study, this paper contributes to ongoing discussions about the governance of sustainable food systems, particularly in urban settings. It sheds light on how food policy councils, citizen summits, and other democratic innovations interact with institutional legacies and stakeholder dynamics to shape local food strategies. The findings also highlight the need for a deeper exploration of whether the absence of visible conflict reflects genuine consensus or a form of policy inertia that stifles innovation and inclusivity.