{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019281332164767746, 'fraction_numerical': 0.015775635407537247, 'mean_word_length': 5.488636363636363, '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}}
The successful transposition of European provisions by member states: application to the Framework Equality Directive

The present study aims to explain variation between member states in compliance with provisions of a European Union (EU) law. Predictions are derived about the effects of technical fit, discretion, Commission warnings, and conflict in the Council on the probability of member-state transposition of separate EU policy requirements. Hypotheses are tested on the level of compliance of 15 member states with 27 major provisions laid down in the Framework Equality Directive (2000/78/EC). Extensive analysis of documents and reports from key informants provided information on member-state transposition progress at the end of 2004 and 2006. Results show that the domestic adaptation costs to a provision play an important role for member-state transposition success: high levels of fit and provisions granting discretion improve member-state transposition success. Formal warnings by the Commission lead to a better compliance record, while conflict in the Council does not affect the successful transposition of provisions.