Kevin Pendergast Feb 22, 2010:

Two four six eight, freedom to associate! The civil code speaks of 'associazioni', not 'associazionismo'. I certainly wouldn't argue that the '-ismo' is never a meaningful suffix for this word, but in this particular case I think it might be best to ignore it and translate as if it were simply "associazioni di stranieri"

James (Jim) Davis Feb 22, 2010:

To Will This term is very common. In my experience has a vague meaning of "something to do with associations" where the "something" needs to be interpreted in each context. The civil code dedicates a number of articles to them and they can be recognised and unrecognised.

http://www.uicc.it/codice_civile.htm

Kevin Pendergast Feb 22, 2010:

associazionismo oppure associazioni? I can't come up with an adequate English term for 'associazionismo', either, unless it pops up in a discussion about Hume's philosophy of mind, in which case it would be 'associationism'.
Anyway, in this context, I have to wonder whether the '-ism' isn't a superfluous suffix that merely serves to confuse the reader and the translator. This might be a case of an author inappropiately extending a word in order to sound more sophisticated (when in fact it has an oppositizing effect). If so, I think Cedric's answer is correct.
In the more unlikely event that the '-ismo' is not superfluous, that is, that the author is referring more to the idea of forming associations, then I would interpret "lo sviluppo di associazionismo" as something to the effect of "developing community bonds". The reason I say this interpretation is unlikely is that the context of a specific amount of funds going towards these initiatives probably implies we're talking about concrete organizations as opposed to a more abstract concept.