European Policy Analysis Volume 2, Number 1, Spring 2016 | Page 62

Second Tier, Second Thoughts

problems have to be dealt with in a context
of uncertainty and ambiguity. Moreover,
the dilemma of EIOPA to deal with the
very divergent interests of the member
states and of different stakeholders wary
their turf corroborates our expectation that
the characteristics of the crisis context may
also make the involved actor’s resorting
to their core values and interests. In the
multilevel context of the EU, this puts
EIOPA in a delicate position as it has to
respect the opinions of the stakeholders
while at the same time being pushed by
the Commission toward giving clear-cut
policy advice.

For the moment, EIOPA seems
to solve this dilemma by retreating
considerably from earlier statements
on tax harmonization and by trying to
establish itself as a purely technical entity
now focusing on consumer protection.
This framing might well ease its settlingin between the Commission and national
regulators as well as member states
governments, allowing it to present itself as
an institution willing to listen and ready to
learn. That way, challenges to the legitimacy
of its actual function could be deflected
successfully, and quite far-reaching policy
change in terms of a pan-European 2nd
tier might well be the consequence.

This strategy, however, threatens to
perpetuate the illusion of straightforward
technical fixes to the underlying
distributional conflicts which are thereby
depoliticized. Furthermore, it helps to
uphold the state of denial regarding the
external costs imposed by the Euro’s
(alleged) rescuers on retirement provision.
Thus, EIOPA as an institution created to
hedge systemic risks and their impact
on the living standard of senior citizens
paradoxically contributes to the prodigious
pension pretense that is becoming an ever

larger elephant in the room of EU social
and fiscal policy.

References
Bauschke, R. 2010. “The Effectiveness of
European Regulatory Governance: The
Case of Pharmaceutical Regulation.” In
Fakultät für Wirtschafts-und Sozialwissenschaften. Heidelberg: Ruprecht-Karls-Universität He idelberg, available at: http://
archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver
/12639/
Berthon, J., C. Cronin, G. Prache, K.
Struwe, and J. M. Viver. 2013. “The Real
Return of Private Pensions.” A Research
Report by EuroFinUse. In. Brussels.
Blatter, J., C. Bombach and R. Wiprächtiger 2015. “Enhancing Gender-Equity
through Evidence-Based Policymaking?
Theorizing and Tracing the use of
Systematic Knowledge in Family and Tax
Policy Reforms.” European Policy Analysis
1 (1): 3–34.
Blyth, M. 2002. The Great Transformations.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Buckley, J., and D. Howarth. 2011. “Internal
Market: Regulating the So-Called Vultures
of Capitalism.” Journal of Common Market
Studies 49, Annual Review: 123–143.
Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales.
2014. “Strategische Sozialberichterstattung.
Nationaler Sozialbericht 2014.” In Bonn:
Bundesministerium für Arbeit und
Soziales, Referat Information, Publikation,
Redaktion.

62