000			01657naa a2200205uu 4500
001			9112610295537
003			OSt
005			20190211165946.0
008			091126s2009 xx ||||gr |0|| 0 eng d
100	1		_aSTEUNENBERG, Bernard _938434
245	1	0	_aComparing transposition in the 27 member states of the EU : _bthe impact of discretion and legal fit
260			_aOxfordshire : _bRoutledge, _cOctober 2009
520	3		_aTranspositions performance differs significantly across countries and policy sectors in the EU. In this article we analyse the transposition efforts of all 27 member states with regard to four EC directives expected to create considerable difficulties for compliance at the national level. Using Cox proportional hazards regression, we find that discretion and legal fit are significant factors in explaning transposition. Furthermore, we discover that the new member states from Central and Eastern Europe are not doing any worse than the rest of the EU in terms of transposition timeliness. Surprisingly, government effectiveness has a negative relationship with compliance, while periods of absence of functioning government do not increase transposition time. Our findings emphasize the importance of legal-administrative factors for compliance with EU law.
590			_adiscretion; EU law; event history analysis; implementation; legal fit; transposition.
700	1		_aTOSHKOV, Dimiter _938435
773	0	8	_tJournal of European Public Policy _g16, 7, p. 951-970 _dOxfordshire : Routledge, October 2009 _xISSN 13501763 _w
942			_cS
998			_a20091126 _b1029^b _cDaiane
998			_a20100119 _b1637^b _cCarolina
999			_aConvertido do Formato PHL _bPHL2MARC21 1.1 _c31089 _d31089
041			_aeng