{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016142735768903994, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.096385542168675, '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}}
Run(a)way bureaucrats? When a National Civil Aviation Authority meets global and European regimes

This case study of a national civil aviation authority focuses on how global and European regimes for aviation safety regulation impact the administrative behaviour of national-level agency officials when they apply aviation legislation. The organizational differences between the International Civil Aviation Organization and the European Union are reflected in the behaviour of national officials. Formally, the European Union enforces application of law through binding regulations and inspections, but enforcement is also informal. Although the International Civil Aviation Organization lacks the capacity to follow up in the same way, it also participates in and hosts many relevant activities. Using an organizational perspective, this article ascribes these differences to factors such as capacity, specialization, and demography. At the same time, empirical findings show similarities in contact patterns among important stakeholders when officials apply law. Institutional theory relates similarities in contact patterns to national authorities’ institutional heritage.