European Integration and Pension Policy Change: Variable Patterns of Europeanization in Italy, the Netherlands and Belgium

Abstract

This article investigates how European welfare states respond to reform pressures arising from European integration. We focus on the field of public pensions and examine the impact of two institutional variables that mediate the impact of reform pressures: the extent of public pension provision and the number of national political veto points. We argue that, all else equal, memberstates with few veto points and a relatively small public pension sector are the most likely cases of policy change in response to Europeanization, whereas member-states with a high number of veto points and extensive public pension commitments are the least likely candidates for policy change. We test these arguments in four cases of Europeanization in three countries (Belgium, the Netherlands and Italy).

Varieties of crisis and working conditions: A comparative study of Greece and Serbia

“…They have developed a variety of theories on institutional change (Van der Heijden and Kuhlmann, 2017). In the past decade, many studies in the employment relations area have examined institutional change on a macro level (Anderson and Kaeding, 2015; Arnholtz and Andersen, 2017; Brandl and Ibsen, 2016; López-Andreu, 2019; Thelen, 2009). While the institutional change literature focuses on exogenous shocks that bring about radical reconfigurations, studies of organizations as institutions (the micro level of analysis), and how they induce internal motivations for organizational decisions (Tsai et al, 2006), are limited.…”

Portuguese healthcare reforms in the context of crisis: External pressure or domestic choice?

“…The two countries introduced very specific pension reforms that would be unthinkable in the absence of external incentives and conditions set by the Troika had "substantial influence" on both the direction and scope of their respective pension reforms (ibid., pp. 329-330; see also Anderson & Kaeding, 2013). Focusing on Greece and Portugal, Theodoropolou (2014) similarly argues that the crisis and the accompanying MoUs changed the EU's potential to intrude into the reform of national social and labour market policy, with an "unprecedentedly strong enforcement dimension" (ibid., p. 10).…”

Europeanization in Pension Policy: the Crisis as a Game-Changer?

“…153 (4)), suggests -while the European institutions in this field should not extend their activities beyond market creation (for a critical and differentiated view of the 'latecomer discourse' see Schmidt 2015: 15ff). In fact, the heterogeneous economic structure, economic performance and types of welfare states, the decision-making rules at the European level, the small budget for EU social policy, a high number of veto players and the preference of large parts of the political and administrative elites as well as of the electorate to maintain social policy within the national domain, pose significant barriers to the emergence of a strong European social policy (Anderson and Kaeding 2015;Schmidt 2015: 21ff.). At the same time, social policy is broadly accepted not only as an important factor of economic and demographic development, but also as a central aspect of the legitimacy and acceptance of a political system.…”

“…Natali and Stamati (2013) analyse recent pension reforms in Finland, France, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Slovenia, Sweden and the UK against the backdrop of the crisis, and focus on the role of unions in this process. Anderson and Kaeding (2015) compare reforms in Italy, the Netherlands and Belgium with a view to analysing the influences of EU gender equality law and the run-up to the European Monetary Union's convergence criteria. Their focus is on domestic institutions and programme structures to explain different patterns of adaptation.…”