| dc.description.abstract | This thesis analyses the political process of the EU-directive Solvency II, as well as the amending directive of Omnibus II. Solvency II is the new regulatory regime of the European insurance industry which is to take effect on the 1st of January 2016. The result of this implementation is that life and non-life insurers across the EU will be sharing a common regulatory framework for the first time in history. Since 2001, EU regulation in the realm of financial services has been conducted under the legislative Lamfalussy process which consists of a four level structure. The first step in the process tracing study is to give a theoretical account of this system including the ways in which it was changed following the Lisbon Treaty of 2009. The description of this process also necessitates a presentation of the relevant institutions at the EU level of which CEIOPS and EIOPA are of particular importance. Furthermore, the involvement and interests of other involved actors are presented. The interests of the Member States have varied significantly as a consequence of differences in domestic insurance markets. The non-governmental stakeholders which were involved in the process – represented by the insurance industry - are identified and accounted for as well. The Solvency II process is traced through the following six distinct phases: 1999-2004 Solvency II – Learning phase: Preparations for the process 2004-2008 Solvency II – Development phase: Consultations and expert advice 2008-2009 Solvency II – The political phase: Co-decision procedure and trialogue 2009-2011 The Financial crisis and the Lisbon Treaty: Significant external shocks 2011-2012 Omnibus II – Pre-trialogue process: Adaptation to the Lisbon Treaty 2012-2016 Omnibus II – Trialogue process: Long-term guarantee issues and trialogue The analysis of these stages is conducted from three separate perspectives, namely i) the knowledge-based perspective of epistemic communities; ii) the state-centric framework of liberal intergovernmentalism; and iii) the theory of multilevel governance. None of the frameworks applied provide a reasonable explanation for every part of the directive during all six phases. Yet, each has explanatory power for some part of the legislation during some periods of the process. As might be expected, the development phase is best explained by the knowledge based approach whereas the trialogues resemble the bargaining between nation states predicted by liberal intergovernmentalism. Furthermore, evidence to support the MLG theory is to some extent identified throughout the process, particularly due to the heavy involvement of private insurance companies as providers of expert advice and as lobbyists. The period of the Financial crisis and the Lisbon Treaty appears as a breaking point in the process after which the explanatory power of all three theories changed as follows: - Epistemic communities: EIOPA which (it is argued) resembles an epistemic community, was set up as a powerful and (semi-)independent EU agency. - Liberal intergovernmentalism: For many European Member States the financial crisis implied more pressing, and diverging, national interests which raised the stakes of the political process. Hence, the relevance of this perspective was increased. - Multilevel-Governance: following the Lisbon treaty, the European Parliament gained increased powers and EIOPA was created. Hence, the independent influence of sovereign EU actors was enhanced. | eng |