Very interesting question, which I think might be useful to split into two parts. The first is concerned with regional variation in Italian poor relief in the 12th and 13th centuries, and if political systems be said to influence this variation; and I would examine the possibility of social and economic advancement secondly and separately.

The response to both questions is complicated by a lack of documentation in the period specified. I’m familiar with a compendium of research titled "*Povertà e innovazione istituzionale in Italia, dal medioevo ad oggi*," edited by Vera Negri-Zamagni does exist (and even includes some english-language material!) but the common thread is that definitive answers are difficult, as analysis only gets easier in the fifteenth century when the physical record becomes more abundant.

There is no doubt that for 12th and 13th century Italians, charity-giving was an important part of aristocratic life: an important christian value which on the one hand could be used to put one’s soul at ease, but on the other was also an important tool of political manipulation, not in the least because the actual completion of charitable deeds was often delegated to religious orders through gifts of money or property. These religious orders were important economic and political actors in their own right and could be instrumentalized to raise the political and social profile of benefactors. Charity was also an important tool to mollify and palate the masses, on whose labor the fortunes of the wealthy relied.

This generally means that where there was competition between political actors, that is to say where political dynasties completed for influence and station, there generally was a greater interest in helping the poor. This would superficially lead us to think that the northern city-republics would do better in terms of poor relief.

However, similar dynamics weren’t absent from the southern monarchy’s cities either, and especially not absent from the cities of the Papal States. These cities were smaller but came from the same ancient roman political heritage as their northern counterparts (in fact, in some ways this roman heritage was stronger: Southern Italy had been more prosperous than the north through the life of the empire, but in subsequent periods suffered the disruption of mediterranean trade routes, not in the least the interruption of grain shipments from Egypt and North Africa). This political heritage survived even in the presence of an entrenched landowning warrior aristocracy more familiar in a generic image of the middle ages, solidified in this instance through centuries of near-continuous war (against Byzantium first, and later against the succession of North African and Near-Eastern Empires). What this means is that much like in the north, southern cities all had systems of government through collegiate systems of local notables working in close coordination with the local clergy, and in these societies charity-giving was just as important a part of christian life as in the north.

I think the second part of your question has more to do with wealth accumulation. However, I think it’s important to first outline that the medieval economy is something much different than any economy you or I might be familiar with, as the primary economic activity was agriculture by such a proportion that it was the only economic activity of consequence for very many people. The number of craftsmen, artisans, and artists was growing, but nonetheless represented a very small proportion of economic activity. Likewise, cities were small: Venice, Florence, and Milan might have counted close to 100 000 inhabitants in 1300 (at the end of the period you asked about) but outside of those three no city surpasses 50 000 inhabitants (Palermo, Bologna, and Siena are the only to approach that number) and many politically influential city-republics are in the 10 000 to 20 000 range, with many much smaller. Thus we must understand that most people did not live in cities, but were instead tied to land, either through forms of bondage commonly referred to with the blanket term “serfdom,” or contracts of various forms of tenancy (renting farmland either in exchange for a portion of the harvest or monetary payment). Many also owned their own land, and land ownership would in fact increase in the centuries you’re asking about as plague and political upheavals reduced the number of serfs and renters.

Thus there were those who owned more or less land, and who were tied to more or less onerous contracts to landowners, but on farms in both north and south Italy, there was generally enough agricultural surplus to keep farmers well fed, and bring grain to market in cities. Crop failure was certainly a major fear, and its consequences were often terrible, but ultimately the material wealth of the majority of the population was not really perceptibly different. It is then difficult to talk of “poverty” among people whose material conditions are not very different from those of most other people across the peninsula.

The presence of a largely static society is reflected in the social and religious understanding of poverty and class in the period, which does not encourage refusal of one’s material status, as worldly life (in the Christian understanding) is preparation for the afterlife. Indeed poverty, in the form that it concerned medieval people, was generally understood as the inability to provide for oneself as the consequence of some calamity: the death of a breadwinner, chronic sickness, or the emergence some other disability; these were the ills that poor relief, through he institutions or actions of the church like hospitals, homes for orphaned children, and protection of widows, sought to alive. This means that the people who could be said to be poor through exploitation, like serfs at the mercy of cruel overlords, displaced people due to war or other violence, or servants exploited by their masters, could be cut off from charity, especially if those who were exploiting them levied accusations of laziness or or indolence. There are discussions in medieval theology as to who is and who is not worthy of charity.

So given all this, what did economic growth look like in medieval Italy? How could someone who had nothing, a child abandoned at an orphanage, for example, attain a comfortable economic station?

I've written more in a reply to this post, to get around limits to word count.