{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021396396396396396, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.216783216783217, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Central Coordination and the Policy Network

Where responsibility for a public service is divided between the centre and sub-national government, legislative intention is unlikely to match service delivery. This is the implementation gap or control deficit, which, it is claimed, will always arise because of inherent limitations on central coordinative capacity. However, this claim seems to be derived from states like West Germany where conditions are such that the centre is severely handicapped. In states where the centre has fewer constrictions, like the United Kingdom, the centre appears to be able to minimize control deficits by a number of means, including the co-option of national associations of sub-national professionals, and sub-national units themselves. The UK centre is also able to restructure the sub-national system itself in order to enhance its control capacity.