Davit Maisuradze,

PhD, Professor,

Ilia State University

Giorgi Khishtovani

PhD, Professor,

Ilia State University

Giorgi Mukhigulishvili

LLM, Lecturer,

Ilia State University

Mariam Kobalia

LLM, Researcher,

Ilia State University

Abstract

After declaring her independence, Georgia, together with other countries of the former Socialist Bloc, started to implement institutional reforms with the aim of one day becoming a member of the European Union. One of the main frameworks for institutional reform was the implementation of the principles of good governance. It is widely considered that principles of good governance create the foundation for sustainable development, political stability and economic growth. Implementing good governance principles requires combination of institutional and legal reforms, among them crucial place is taken by Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) reform. The purpose of the RIA reform in Georgia was to increase the efficiency of the decision-making process and improve the quality of the Georgian legislation.

The Authors of this article argue that RIA reform could not achieve its overarching objective. To test this hypothesis, the authors evaluate the design and implementation of Georgia’s RIA framework against internationally recognized principles of good governance. Drawing on a mixed-methods approach – combining legal and policy analysis, document review of 37 publicly available RIA reports, and stakeholder interviews and focus groups – the study assesses both the normative legislative framework and the practical quality of RIAs conducted in Georgia. A weighted matrix scoring system is employed to evaluate the degree of compliance of RIA documents with good governance principles.

Findings indicate that while the legal and methodological framework aligns conceptually with good governance standards, implementation remains inconsistent. Only 40.6% of the RIA documents assessed are categorized as high performers, while 21.6% fail to meet minimum governance criteria. Key challenges include broad legal exemptions from RIA requirements, limited institutional capacity, donor-driven implementation processes, and low political and administrative ownership. These shortcomings have led to a disconnect between formal regulatory design and its practical application.

This study contributes to international literature by offering empirical insights into the challenges and prospects of institutionalizing evidence-based policymaking in transitional democracies, particularly those operating within contexts of political volatility and administrative fragmentation.

Keywords: Regulatory Impact Assessment, Principles of Good Governance, Hybrid Democracies

Introduction

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, in 1991, Georgia joined the number of Post-Soviet countries which started to build the modern, western market-oriented democracies. Georgia began initially prioritizing economic and political reforms, implementing liberal economic agenda and state building policy (Rekhviashvili, 2013; Timm, 2013). However, by the early 2010s, the focus gradually shifted toward institutional transformation. This shift was driven by two main factors: the growing momentum of the European integration process and the government’s strong formal pro-Western orientation (Council of the European Union, 2014; European Commission, 2014). The shift towards institutional reforms was accompanied and accelerated by signing the Association Agreement in 2014. The EU–Georgia Association Agreement specifically outlines the need for regulatory approximation and the adoption of good governance principles. It was anticipated that the commitments which were taken as part of the Association Agreement with EU, and later as an EU candidate country aimed to enact changes in judicial and state administrative branches, would ensure implementation of the principles of Good Governance and enhance creation of the better environment for protecting the social and human rights (European Commission, 2015; European Commission, 2017).

At the heart of this agenda was the implementation of the principles of good governance, which became a cornerstone of Georgia’s modernization efforts and institutional reforms. Good governance – characterized by transparency, accountability, rule of law, effectiveness, and citizen participation (UNESCAP, 2009; UNDP, 2011; Council of Europe, 2008; Parigi et al. 2004; Kaufmann et al, 1999) – was seen as essential for ensuring sustainable development and public trust (European Commission, 2015; European Commission, 2017). Translating these principles into practical policymaking required tools that could guide informed, transparent, and inclusive regulatory decisions. In this context, one of the key instruments for implementing good governance in Georgia became the introduction of Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA). By integrating RIA into policy formulation, decision-makers can enhance the quality of regulation and better align it with the good governance standards. RIA provided a structured, evidence-based approach to policymaking and helped align legislative processes with European standards, paving the way for more effective and accountable governance (Carroll, 2010).

Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) is considered a core instrument of good governance because it promotes transparency, accountability, and evidence-based policymaking in the regulatory process. By systematically evaluating the potential economic, social, environmental, and administrative impacts – both positive and negative – of proposed regulations, RIA helps to ensure that government decisions are informed, proportionate, and aligned with public interest (OECD, 2020). Its goal is to ensure that regulations are evidence-based, cost-effective, and achieve their intended objectives with minimal negative side effects. RIA requires decision-makers to justify regulatory choices, engage stakeholders, and consider alternative solutions, thereby enhancing trust and legitimacy in governance (OECD, 2020). Moreover, RIA supports the rule of law by providing a clear, documented rationale for regulation, which can be reviewed and held to account. According to the World Bank, the implementation of RIA contributes to improved regulatory quality and more efficient use of public resources, which are essential elements of effective governance (World Bank, 2017; OECD, 2015).

RIA originated in OECD countries during the late 20th century, particularly in the United Kingdom and the United States, as governments sought to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of regulation. Over time, it was adopted by many other countries, including Australia, Canada, and EU member states (Brenner & Fazekas, 2020), and is now recognized as an international best practice in regulatory governance. RIA is central to the OECD’s Regulatory Policy Framework, which supports member and partner countries in implementing better regulation systems (Radaelli, 2005).

Apart from the indicated mechanism of institutional context, World Bank states that regulatory impact assessment is mostly done by the rich countries than the poor ones. Therefore, there is difference in frequency and scope of RIAs done in developed and in developing countries (World Bank Group, Global Indicators of Regulatory Governance, 2018). It is also an indication that there is no single RIA model in all countries. Therefore, RIAs in developing countries are not conducted in a unified way and studies show the difference among RIA implementation measures among developing countries (Ladegaard et al., 2018).

The Georgian government, with the support from international organizations such as the European Union (EU), United States Agency for International Development (USAID), GIZ (German Society for International Cooperation) began implementation of RIA to improve legislative processes (Khishtovani, Forthcoming; USAID, 2015; ISET, 2023). RIA reform aimed to increase regulatory transparency, predictability, and public engagement in policymaking (OECD, 2018). The initial non-systemic implementation process of RIA reform started in 2007 but the institutionalization of RIA began in 2015 when with the assistance of donor community institutional framework of RIA was developed (Khishtovani, Forthcoming; Kakhidze & Pipia, 2024). Respondents of the interviews and focus group meetings underlined that donor organizations have played a significant role in supporting the development of Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIAs) in Georgia – including with providing relevant trainings to the representatives of public service and academia. During the initial stages of RIA implementation, there was a prevalent belief that donor organizations (EU, USAID, etc.) and international experts should carry out the bulk of the work, with minimal involvement from local public officials. This resulted in limited engagement of public officials in the RIA process and undermined the development of institutional knowledge and expertise in the public sector. This led to a situation where, ultimately, not only the funding but the entire burden of RIA development process fall on the donors which resulted in public organizations lacking the ownership of RIA development process.

Legislative institutionalization of RIA reform began from 2019. On May 29, 2019, Parliament of Georgia amended the Organic Law of Georgia on Normative Acts, and added the new article 171 regarding the Regulatory Impact Assessment. Later based on the 2020 January 17 Ordinance N35 of the Government of Georgia “on the Approval of Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) Methodology”, it became mandatory for the Government of Georgia to conduct regulatory impact assessments according to the stipulated methodology before introducing them to the parliament.[2] Specifically, according to the reform, the decision of the government should be based on positive and negative aspects (costs and benefits) of RIA. Moreover, in decision-making, local and international context of policy analysis should be studied, the positions of the stakeholders should be taken into account; furthermore, the policy alternatives should be developed and the selection process should be made based on their evaluation.

Thus, based on the abovementioned, RIA reform in Georgia had three key pillars, particularly: (1) development of methodological frameworks for the preparation of RIA documents; (2) institutionalization on the legislative level; and (3) capacity building of staff within the institutions involved in the reform (USAID, 2015). The analysis of this article mostly addresses the first and second pillars of the RIA reform.

It should be highlighted that evaluation process of the RIA reform in international academic literature is faced with the different research gaps, such as:

Firstly, one of the core purposes of implementation of RIA reform in Georgia was strengthening the principles of good governance but there is a gap in research literature – authors of the article  were not able to locate the study where the compliance of the legislative framework of RIA corresponds to the principles of good governance.  

Secondly, authors of the article were not able to locate the study where the quality of RIA documents are studied in accordance to the principles of Good Governance.

Thus, to study the RIA implementation process in Georgia and at the same time, address the existing gaps in the literature, the authors of this article established two research questions, such as:

 (1) Is the Georgian legislation regulating the RIA in compliance with the principles of good governance?

 (2) Is the quality of developed RIA documents in Georgia in accordance with the principles of good governance?

The existing literature clearly establishes a link between good governance principles and Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA), recognizing RIA as a tool that promotes transparency, accountability, and evidence-based policymaking (Radaelli, 2005). However, several studies also highlight a persistent gap between formal compliance with RIA procedures and their practical implementation, suggesting that the presence of RIA frameworks does not automatically translate into meaningful good governance outcomes (Jacob et al., 2008; Kirkpatrick & Parker, 2004). This disconnect between the theoretical alignment and actual practice forms is the central focus of this research. Therefore, both research questions explore whether RIA in Georgia functions merely as a formal compliance mechanism or whether it genuinely contributes to the implementation of good governance principles in practice.

To address those research questions, the authors of this study conducted a comprehensive evaluation of RIA implementation in Georgia by applying both qualitative and empirical methods. In addition to desk research, the study employed semi-structured interviews, focus groups, and content analysis of RIA reports to evaluate both the technical quality of the assessments and their alignment with the core principles of good governance.  

The research located 61 RIA documents, which represents the overwhelming majority of all RIA reports produced in Georgia to date, making it the most extensive analysis of its kind. It is estimated that about 80 RIAs were developed from 2015 till July 2024 (UNDP Georgia, 2024). Out of these 61 RIA documents, authors of the article studied 37 RIAs which were publicly available. Thus, the authors located more than 75% of the total number of RIAs developed in Georgia and studied almost 50% of all RIAs developed in Georgia.

This research contributes to a more nuanced understanding of RIA’s role in Georgia’s broader institutional transformation and offers a rare empirical perspective on the intersection between regulatory reform and good governance principles in transitional democracies.

Methodology

To answer the mentioned two research questions authors of the article used different research methods. For the first research question, authors of the article used literature review method, and for the second research question, method of analysis and scoring of the RIA documents were used. At the same time, interviews and focus group meetings were used for discussing both research questions.

Literature Overview – was one of the key methodologies involved in developing the article. This method involves systematically collecting, analyzing, and summarizing existing scholarly work on a specific topic or research question. While collecting the relevant literature, authors of the article mostly concentrated on identifying and studying the literature on Regulatory Impact Assessment and Good Governance. Authors studied the guidelines, instructions and reports of the international organizations and scholarly work of academia. This helped to ensure that the article was grounded in well-established theoretical and practical frameworks.

Interviews and focus groups – authors of the article conducted in-depth interviews with the different stakeholders, including – representatives of international donors, policy experts, government officials and CSOs. Authors of the article used semi-structured questionaries’ and were interested in different aspects of the RIA reform such as institutionalization of RIA practices in Georgia, results of RIA reform from the perspective of the good governance, the role of the donor organizations, role of public sector in RIA development and implementation process, legislative drafting process, availability of human and financial resources in development of RIA, main shortcomings in the quality of RIA documents, and other issues related to RIA reform and good governance. This method enabled the authors to identify recurring themes, practical challenges, and stakeholder expectations.

Additional source for this research includes a list of 61 RIA documents developed by various governmental, private and international agencies in Georgia. Out of the 61 RIA documents, authors of the article assessed all publicly available – 37 RIA documents. These documents span a variety of sectors, including economic development, environmental policy, and social welfare, to provide a comprehensive view of the RIA process across different areas of governance. Authors of the article used scoring method to develop qualitative criteria for evaluating the quality and practical applicability of RIAs, and then quantitatively assessed their quality and usability. This approach involves assigning numerical values to specific features or elements within a document, allowing researchers to quantify qualitative content.

Theoretical Framework of RIA and the Principles of Good Governance

Good governance refers to the effective, efficient, and ethical management of public affairs and resources by institutions, organizations, or governments. It ensures that power is exercised responsibly, transparently, and in a way that promotes justice, participation, and sustainable development (Johnston, 2004). Transparency and access to information allow citizens to understand how decisions are made. The rule of law guarantees that justice is applied equally to all, without bias. Participation of all groups is encouraged to shape policies that reflect the needs of society (van Doeveren, 2014).

There are different studies and guidelines which discuss the main principles of good governance. African Development Bank, United Nations Commission for Asia and Pacific (UNESCAP, 2009), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP, 2011) and other international organizations allocate different core principles for Good Governance (Kaufmann et al, 1999). These are principles which is agreed to be the core principles in defining the Good Governance:

Rule of law – The rule of law means that all individuals, institutions, and entities are subject to laws that are publicly disclosed, applied equally, and adjudicated independently, in alignment with international human rights standards. It necessitates measures to uphold principles such as accountability to the law, participation in decision-making process, legal certainty, and transparency in legal processes and procedures (UNDP, 1997). Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly, Goal 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) also covers the Rule of Law principle (UN, 2015).

Accountability – is a crucial component of effective governance. Government institutions, private sector organizations, and civil society groups must all be accountable to the public and their relevant stakeholders. Accountability mechanisms ensure that governments, public institutions, and officials are held responsible for their actions and decisions, and are prepared to face appropriate consequences for any misconduct or failures (Council of Europe, 2008).

Transparency – is the practice of making decisions and carrying out enforcement in line with established rules and regulations. It also ensures that information is easily accessible to those impacted by these decisions and their implementation. Transparency involves the open sharing of timely, accurate, and relevant information, enabling public understanding, oversight (Graham et al., 2003),and informed participation. It is essential for fostering accountability and is widely regarded as a key mechanism for preventing corruption in public life (Parigi et al., 2004). 

Effectiveness and Efficiency – Effectiveness and efficiency occur when processes and institutions deliver outcomes that address needs while maximizing the use of available resources (Council of Europe, 2008). In the context of good governance, the concept of efficiency also encompasses the sustainable use of natural resources and the safeguarding of the environment (UNESCAP, 2009).  

Evidence-based policy – Evidence encompasses a variety of data, results of statistical activities (Evidence Act, 2018), information, and knowledge sources, including quantitative data like statistics and measurements, qualitative data such as opinions, stakeholder input, evaluation findings, as well as scientific research and expert recommendations (European Commission, 2021). Evidence plays a crucial role throughout the policy cycle, shaping how public interventions are developed, implemented, and evaluated (OECD, 2020). 

Participation – This principle ensures that citizens actively participate in decision-making, resulting in more transparent, accountable, and effective governance (Dunlop & Radaelli, 2019). According to the OECD, citizen participation is a fundamental aspect of open government and promotes more democratic policymaking, enhancing transparency, inclusivity, legitimacy, and accountability (OECD, 2017).

Responsiveness – Government, public institutions, and officials must address the legitimate expectations and needs of the citizens they serve (Council of Europe, 2008). Responsive governance ensures that public institutions address citizen needs by effectively managing services, engaging with oversight bodies, and promptly acting on feedback and monitoring outcomes (Council of Europe, 2008).   

RIA serves as one of the practical mechanisms for translating the principles of good governance into concrete actions within the policymaking cycle.  As governments around the world began prioritizing the principles of good governance – namely transparency, accountability, participation, effectiveness, efficiency, and rule of law – Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) emerged as a practical mechanism to apply these abstract values in the day-to-day practice of policymaking. RIA supports transparency by requiring governments to publicly justify regulatory decisions, and enhances accountability by documenting the rationale behind policy choices and exposing them to scrutiny (Jakupec & Kelly, 2016).

Existing literature shows that there is no single, universally accepted definition of RIA from a theoretical perspective. It is often viewed either as an administrative requirement or as a tool for evaluating public policy decisions to assess the costs and benefits which are imposed by regulations on specific business sectors or sectors of public life. The aim of RIA can be reduction of the regulatory burden on businesses in particular sectors and/or implementation of reforms which benefit the society overall (Jakupec & Kelly, 2016; World Bank, 2010; OECD, 2025).

At first, development of RIA started in USA and in UK. In 1981 President Ronald Reagan issued Executive Order 12291, which required federal agencies to perform a cost-benefit analysis for all major regulations.[3] The UK introduced RIA under the name “Compliance Cost Assessment” (CCA) in the mid-1980s, as part of its broader deregulation efforts under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher (Froud & Ogus, 1996). Starting from 1990 RIA gained popularity in other countries too, especially, among members of OECD (Kamkhaji, et al., 2019). In USA, RIAs are more connected with the secondary legislation but in transition countries due to their centralized governance structures RIAs became more attached to the draft laws (Rogowski et al., 2018).

The need for RIA arises because regulations can have wide-ranging and unpredictable effects, necessitating detailed analysis and input from stakeholders. From an economic perspective, there is a concern that the costs of regulation might outweigh its benefits. As a result, the primary role of a RIA is to ensure that the regulation will positively impact societal welfare, will not have adverse effects on small and medium enterprises, will support development of the community and will not have detrimental influence on environment (Jacob et al., 2011), thus, meaning that its benefits will exceed its costs (Radaelli, 2005). Typically, RIA is conducted by comparing various approaches for achieving the desired goals and assessing their relative effectiveness (Kirpatrick & Parker, 2007). RIA can improve legislative outcomes by creating the reliable knowledge base and reducing the information asymmetry between law-making process participants (Rogowski et al., 2018).

The effectiveness of RIA in reinforcing good governance largely depends on the extent to which it is embedded within a broader administrative reform agenda (Turnpenny et al., 2009). Despite its challenges, RIA has been recognized as a platform for embedding accountability and stakeholder participation in the legislative process (Kirkpatrick & Parker, 2007). In several transition countries, RIA processes have evolved from formalistic exercises to more substantive policy tools aligned with Good Governance principles such as openness and inclusiveness (Adelle et al., 2015).

International organizations such as the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), World Bank, and the European Union began to promote RIA not just as a regulatory tool, but as a cornerstone of governance reform, particularly in transition economies and developing countries undergoing democratization and institutional transformation (Welch & Waddington, 2005; Dunlop & Radaelli, 2019; OECD, 2020). They have guided countries in adopting regulatory impact assessment standards. These organizations have developed a range of guidelines and reports that highlight the importance of implementing RIAs, outline the steps involved, and identify the challenges that can affect their development.

In newly independent states of former Socialist Bloc, reform of RIA served as the opportunity to extend the scope of principles of Good Governance in public administration.  In post-socialist countries, the adoption of RIA has often been externally driven, particularly by international organizations such as the EU, the World Bank, and the OECD (Radaelli, 2005). The implementation of RIA in Central and Eastern European countries has shown mixed results, often constrained by limited administrative capacity and lack of political will (Fritsch, et al., 2012).  Through stakeholder consultations and impact assessments, RIA fosters public participation and inclusiveness (Deighton-Smith et al., 2016), ensuring that diverse societal interests are considered in the policy process (Dunlop & Radaelli, 2019). By embedding analytical rigor and consultation into the formulation of laws and regulations, RIA also reinforces the rule of law, providing a structured, predictable, and justifiable framework for public decision-making (Kamkhaji, et al., 2019). Thus, from the perspective of good governance, RIA is not merely a technical tool but a foundational process that helps ensure that government actions are legitimate, responsive, and grounded in public interest.

It is noteworthy that RIA provides a transparent framework for assessing the likely effects of regulations, thereby requiring policymakers to justify their choices with evidence. This process prevents arbitrary or uninformed decisions and reinforces accountability—an essential component of good governance (Matlhare, 2024). Identifying the regulatory problem supports transparency and accountability by clearly articulating why government action is needed. Exploring different policy options and assessing their impacts ensures proportionality and effectiveness, helping policymakers choose the most balanced and justified approach (Sari, 2023). The collection and use of data reinforces evidence-based decision-making and transparency, while the evaluation of alternatives strengthens accountability by requiring justification for the chosen path. Selecting a preferred regulatory option based on clear criteria promotes legitimacy and proportionality, and finally, communicating results and involving stakeholders enhances public participation and openness. Altogether, the RIA process provides a structured way to embed good governance principles into policy development and legislative decision-making (Karatas, 2022).

While reviewing the relevant literature, authors of the article noticed that such literature reflects a formal framing—suggesting what RIA should do to support good governance—rather than demonstrating its practical application to the principles of good governance. For example, Adelle et al. (2015) shares experience in suggesting the successful ways of RIA implementation in developing countries while also that there is a limited literature available on the experiences of RIA in developing countries. The article mentions that RIA supports implementation of good governance which “is a way to increase integrity and trust in the policy making process and improve regulatory outcomes by promoting informed decision making.” But apart from underlining the formal compliance of RIA with the principles of good governance, the article does not discuss the quality of developed RIA documents which often fall short of good governance standards due to limited financial and human resources, lack of institutional ownership, insufficient data availability, and weak stakeholder engagement.

In Brenner & Fazekas (2020), the authors describe the legislative effects of RIA on the modification of legal acts, provide strong empirical evidence that RIAs contribute to legal stability, which reflects core good governance principles like transparency, and evidence-based policymaking. The study suggests that stronger institutional, including legislative, frameworks strengthen the alignment of RIAs with the good governance. But at the same time, the study does not evaluate and score RIA documents for alignment with the principles of good governance. Moreover, the article does not analyze the legal frameworks or regulations governing RIAs to assess whether they explicitly embody good governance principles or not.

In Carroll (2010), the author underlines that RIA can lead to a better decision-making process if the certain institutional criteria are met, hence, RIA improves good governance but the article leaves several important gaps. The paper does not systematically assess whether the legal frameworks regulating RIAs align with established good governance principles, nor does it include content analysis of RIA documents. While Kamkhaji et al. (2019) provides a broad overview of RIA reforms in 60 developing countries, it focuses primarily on system-level design, implementation status, and institutional factors influencing success or failure, rather than analyzing the legal content of RIA frameworks or evaluating the quality of individual RIA reports. Although principles of good governance are discussed as part of good practice, there is no systematic assessment of how RIA laws or documents align with specific good governance criteria like participation, accountability, or the rule of law.

Literature overview suggests a persistent gap between the theoretical understanding of RIA and its practical implementation, particularly in terms of advancing good governance. While existing studies often emphasize the normative role of RIA and the importance of RIA reform, few articles provide specific evaluations in relation of RIAs which still does not fill the current research gaps in evaluating the legislation and RIA documents and corresponding them to the principles of good governance. This highlights the need for further empirical research assessing both the formal legal frameworks governing RIA and the actual content of RIA documents against the principles of good governance. This article evaluates both legislative framework of RIA and the quality of RIA documents developed in Georgia and describes their practical application to the principles of good governance.

Analysis of the Conformity of RIA Legislative Framework with the Principles of Good Governance

In response to the RQ1, it should be highlighted that Georgia’s path to becoming an EU member has been characterized by sweeping reforms across its political, economic, and legal institutions. The introduction of RIA in Georgia coincided with the country’s integration process with the European Union. As part of the EU integration process, Georgia committed to improving the transparency, accountability, and effectiveness of its policymaking systems – core principles underpinning both EU governance and the RIA framework. The RIA reform was introduced as a method to serve those principles, strengthen the EU integration process and institutionalize evidence-based policymaking, ensure that new regulations are justified through cost-benefit analysis, and engage stakeholders in the policy process. These aims are not only instrumental in improving domestic regulatory quality but also serve as essential components for meeting the obligations set out in the EU-Georgia Association Agreement, positioning RIA as a key tool in Georgia’s institutional transformation and Europeanization efforts (European Commission, 2015; European Commission, 2017; The Administration of Government of Georgia, 2015).

However, the institutional context of Georgia presents both opportunities and challenges for the effective implementation of RIA. On the one hand, the country has a relatively centralized governance structure, which can facilitate the coordination of reforms. On the other hand, Georgia’s public administration still faces significant challenges, including a lack of experienced personnel, insufficient coordination between government agencies, lack of political will and limited stakeholder engagement in policy processes. These factors create barriers to the effective development and application of RIA (Kvashilava, 2019; Khuroshvili, 2023; 2025).

On May 29, 2019, Parliament of Georgia amended the Organic Law of Georgia on Normative Acts which defines types and hierarchy of the Georgian legislation, and added the new article 171 regarding the Regulatory Impact Assessment. According to the mentioned articles, the Regulatory Impact Assessment shall be mandatory – when preparing a draft law regarding making amendments to a legislative act included in the list of legislative acts defined under an ordinance of the Government of Georgia, if the draft law is initiated by the Government of Georgia; and in individual cases, by decision of the Government of Georgia, when a draft law is prepared by an institution of the executive authority of Georgia.[4]

But at the same time this regulation has exceptions. Particularly, if the draft law concerns budgetary, defense, or security matters, involves only technical or minor changes, ensures compliance with higher-ranking laws or court decisions, is part of a broader legislative package without introducing new issues the mandatory requirement of Regulatory Impact Assessment shall not apply or when delaying the preparation and submission of a draft law is unjustified, the Government of Georgia may, based on a substantiated proposal, fully or partially exempt the relevant body of the executive branch of Georgia from the obligation to conduct a Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) when preparing a draft legislative act. At the same time, the article does not obligate the Parliament of Georgia to conduct RIA if the draft law is initiated by the Parliament. Lastly, the article also obliged the Government of Georgia to adopt the methodology of RIA.

On January 17, 2020, Government of Georgia adopted the Ordinance N35 “On the Approval of Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) Methodology”. This Ordinance shall determine the terms and conditions for performing RIA regarding the legislative initiatives.[5] For the purposes of the research, several articles of the mentioned Ordinance are highlighted and discussed (See table #1). Authors of the research concentrate on these articles because they regulate objectives and content of the regulatory impact assessment, stipulate main principles of RIA, discuss and analyze types and steps of regulatory impact assessment, and draw the list of legislative acts for which a RIA report is mandatory when drafting the amendments. At the same time, to show the compliance between RIA articles and the principles of Good Governance, table #1 – draws the compliance pattern to make it more vivid.

Table #1: Compliance of the Legislative Framework of RIA to the principles of good governance.

Principles of Good GovernanceRIA Legislative Framework (Ordinance N35 of the Government of Georgia On the Approval of Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) Methodology)Assessment
Article 3. Objectives and Content of the Regulatory Impact Assessment.   According to the article 3 of the Ordinance, a Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) must address the following key questions:This article outlines a systematic approach to problem-solving that emphasizes using data and research to define issues, evaluate alternatives, and forecast outcomes—reflecting a commitment to evidence-based policy. By clearly identifying affected groups and intended impacts, it holds policymakers accountable for their decisions. Public access to the rationale and intended outcomes of regulatory proposals enhances transparency and ensures the public’s concerns and needs are taken into account, making governance more responsive.
Article 4. Assessment Principles of Regulatory Impact Assessment.   According to the article 4 of the Ordinance, the following guiding principles should be observed when developing the RIA, particularly:This article introduces principles like necessity, proportionality, and feasibility, which are rooted in legal rationality (Rule of Law), measurable impact (Effectiveness), and data-driven policies (Evidence-Based Policy). It also stresses stakeholder engagement (Participation) and openness in process (Transparency).
Article 7. Types of Regulatory Impact Assessment.   Article 7 of the Ordinance states that there are two types of Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIA):Distinguishing between Standard and In-Depth RIAs allows for the tailoring of analysis based on the scale and complexity of an issue, promoting cost-effectiveness and efficient resource allocation. In-Depth RIAs require quantitative and qualitative analysis, ensuring that policy decisions are grounded in comprehensive evidence. The decision-making process for choosing RIA type also creates a trail of responsibility, increasing institutional accountability.
Article 9. Regulatory Impact Assessment Report.   Article 9 states that a Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) must be prepared in a format consisting of five parts: Lastly, the third attachment of the Ordinance indicates that a proposed scenario of RIA should contain the key assumptions; an assessment of the potential impact on interested stakeholders; an analysis of the scenario’s strengths and weaknesses in relation to the stated objectives; and identification of potential risks.The requirement for public consultation results, procedural steps, and data sources ensures transparency and accountability. Involving stakeholders through consultation supports participation and responsiveness. The analytical stages demand strong use of data and evaluation, supporting evidence-based policymaking.   Requiring assumptions, stakeholder impacts, risk identification, and evaluation of strengths/weaknesses reinforces reliance on evidence, supports policy effectiveness, and holds policymakers accountable for outcomes.
First Attachment to the Ordinance.  List of Legislative Acts for Which a Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) Report Is Mandatory When Preparing Draft Amendments.   According to the first attachment of the mentioned Ordinance there are 20 legal acts regarding which the RIA documents should be prepared if they are amended. This is the list of the legislative acts: By mandating RIAs for specific high-impact legal acts, this attachment strengthens the legal certainty and consistency that underpins the Rule of Law. It holds lawmakers accountable for thoroughly evaluating changes to critical legislation before implementation. Publishing this list also ensures transparency, making it clear when and where RIAs are required.

The described legal framework for Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) in Georgia can be considered broadly in accordance with the principles of good governance—at least in design and intent.

From the abovementioned Law and the Ordinance, and based its compliance patterns with the principles of Good Governance we can have an interim conclusion that normatively Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) is a structured, evidence-based process used by the Government of Georgia to evaluate the potential effects of proposed regulations. It ensures that any new regulation addresses a clearly defined problem, considers various policy alternatives (including doing nothing), and assesses their expected social, economic, and administrative impacts. The process must be transparent, involve stakeholder consultation, and follow a standardized reporting format. Ultimately, the RIA aims to ensure that regulations are necessary, effective, proportionate, implementable, and aligned with national strategies and legal norms.

As a response to the Research Question One, it can be underlined that the Georgian legislation regulating Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) is largely in line with the principles of good governance in its design, particularly emphasizing evidence-based policymaking, transparency, accountability, participation, effectiveness, and the rule of law. The legal and methodological framework—established through amendments to the Organic Law of Georgia on Normative Acts and detailed in Government Ordinance N35—sets clear standards for problem identification, stakeholder engagement, and impact evaluation. It mandates RIA for amendments to key legislative acts and outlines structured procedures to ensure transparency and accountability in policymaking.

However, the framework also includes broad exemptions that may weaken its overall effectiveness and consistency with good governance principles. Specifically, RIAs are not required for draft laws related to defense, security, budgetary matters, technical adjustments, or urgent cases where delays are deemed unjustified, and the Parliament is not obligated to conduct RIAs for its own legislative initiatives. These exemptions, while sometimes practical, can undermine the uniform application of evidence-based decision-making and reduce transparency and accountability in critical areas of governance. Therefore, while in theory the legislative structure of RIA in Georgia is well-aligned with good governance principles, its practical application might be challenged by these exemptions and by institutional limitations.

Are the quality of RIA documents in accordance with the principles of Good Governance?

In response to the RQ2, authors of this article located 61 RIA documents, and assessed 37 of these documents which were publicly available against the principles of Good Governance.

To assess the quality of RIA documents, authors of the article developed a structured set of analytical questions (Annex #1). These questions were derived from a review of existing scholarly literature, based on established RIA guidelines and shaped through consultations with key stakeholders.  The development process of analytical questions included validation meetings involving representatives from private sector entities and civil society organizations, who provided critical feedback to ensure the relevance and comprehensiveness of the evaluation criteria.

To correlate the analytical questions with the principles of good governance — Effectiveness and Efficiency, Rule of Law, Accountability, Evidence-Based Policy, Transparency, Participation, and Responsiveness the authors of the article mapped each of the questions to one or more principles of good governance based on its intent and scope, with each principle represented by four questions.

Analysis covered different issues, including: topics related to the structure, use of data, and problem definition, ensuring that the regulatory need is clearly articulated and evidence-based; the inclusion of multiple alternatives in RIA, stakeholder engagement, and use of comparative analysis reflect participation, ensuring that diverse perspectives are considered and that policies are proportionate to the problems they aim to address; evaluating impacts, methodologies, and motivations behind RIA preparation whether the process leads to real policy improvements or remains superficial. This analysis, does more than measure technical quality of RIA document — it reveals how deeply the RIA process embodies good governance in practice. Table #2 (full version is available in Annex 2) shows the compliance of the RIA documents with the Good Governance principles.

The scoring method for evaluating Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIAs) is a weighted matrix approach based on the seven principles of good governance. Each RIA earns four points for full compliance with each principle of Good Governance, totaling up to 28 points across all principles. The lower the compliance, the lower are the points. To enable comparison across RIAs the total score can be normalized to a percentage using the formula: (RIA Score ÷ 28) × 100. This approach shows compliance of each RIA towards principles of Good Governance and ensures balanced evaluation, transparency, and comparability.

For example, in Annex #2, “Regulatory impact assessment of the draft law on food loss and waste” has four points in the first cell of Effectiveness and Efficiency. According to Annex #1, good governance principle of Effectiveness and Efficiency is assessed by four questions, such as: (4) Is the scale of the regulatory problem described by using qualitative or quantitative data? (5) Are the intervention objectives clearly defined? (7)  Were multiple alternatives considered? 8) Were direct and indirect impacts identified for each alternative during the impact analysis? Therefore, it means that in relation to Effectiveness and Efficiency, authors of the Article, assessed this RIA document by four points, thus it answered positively all four applied questions. The same assessment method was used regarding all RIA documents.

The final analysis divides results into three parts: high level performer RIAs which are aligned with the principles of Good Governance and have score of at least 75% of alignment range, mid-level performer RIAs which are moderately aligned with the principles of Good Governance and have alignment range from 50% to 74% and require further improvement, and non-performer RIAs which are not aligned with the principles of Good Governance with lower than 50% alignment range.

After calculating the points of each RIA according to the principles of Good Governance as it is given in Annex 2, authors of the article developed the summary for Table #2 which presents the alignment of Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIAs) with the principles of Good Governance and is categorized into three performance tiers based on their percentage of alignment.

Summary for Table #2. RIA Alignment Rate with the Principles of Good Governance.

Performance Tier% Alignment Range# of RIAsPercentage  Governance Implication
High Performers≥75%1540,6%Aligned with the principles of Good Governance
Mid-Level Performers50%–74%1437,8%Moderately aligned: room for systematic improvement
Low/Non-Performers<50%821,6%Misaligned: needs structural reform and technical support
  37100% 

While a notable portion—40.6%—of the RIAs can be classified as high performers, demonstrating strong adherence to principles such as transparency, participation, and evidence-based policymaking, the majority still fall short of full alignment. Specifically, 37.8% are mid-level performers, indicating only moderate compliance and highlighting areas requiring systematic improvement, particularly in accountability, stakeholder engagement, and effectiveness. Alarmingly, 21.6% of the RIAs show low or no alignment with Good Governance principles, reflecting serious structural and procedural deficiencies. These results point to critical structural or procedural gaps, suggesting an urgent need for possibly better institutional reform to enhance the quality and integrity of impact assessments.

These findings suggest that while the RIA reform has made progress in institutionalizing good governance practices on the legislative level, its implementation remains inconsistent. For RIAs to truly function as tools for transparent, inclusive, and effective policymaking, further reforms—both technical and institutional—are essential.

These findings underscore that, although the legal and methodological framework for RIA in Georgia is formally grounded in compliance with the principles of good governance, its implementation in practice remains inconsistent and often superficial.

Discussion and Conclusion

Although Georgia has taken important steps towards establishing a legal and institutional framework for Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA), including adopting the Ordinance N35 of the Government of Georgia On the Approval of Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) Methodology, the quality and practical application of RIAs often fall short of good governance standards.

While the formal methodology emphasizes transparency, stakeholder participation, accountability, and evidence-based decision-making, these principles are inconsistently applied in practice. Institutional weaknesses – such as limited financial resources, technical capacity, and analytical skills – have led to heavy reliance on donor organizations, reducing domestic ownership, especially in the early stages of implementation. The views illustrated in Carroll (2010) are also proved by the findings of this article: generally, RIA leads to a better policy but in cases of institutional weaknesses, lack of technical expertise, and administrative resistance to the externally driven RIA – the process can lead to non-alignment of practical application of RIA with its legislative framework. This is proved by the current analysis of RIA documents, assessment of legislative framework and the results of the interviews and focus groups.

Respondents of the interviews and focus groups mentioned that RIA reforms are typically viewed as highly technical and administrative, lacking the immediate visibility or voter appeal that characterizes more populist initiatives. Without high-level political backing, RIA reform may be inconsistently applied across institutions. Without strong political ownership or public demand, RIA reforms risk being treated as compliance exercises driven by donor expectations rather than integrated tools for evidence-based policymaking. The limited capacity of public institutions—both in terms of financial and human resources—has led to a reliance on donor organizations to initiate and support the RIA process. This donor-driven approach has resulted in low domestic ownership, especially during the early stages of RIA implementation, where public officials often remained passive participants.

Furthermore, the pressure of Georgia’s frequently accelerated legislative process significantly hinder transparency, reduce public participation, and compromise the depth and quality of RIA analysis. When the public sees these reforms as distant or irrelevant, there’s little societal pressure to demand accountability or quality in the RIA process. In the context of RIA, the latter means that while the formal requirements for conducting RIAs are in place, they are not consistently applied, and their effectiveness in improving policy outcomes is limited.

Moreover, based on the results of the interviews and focus groups, it can be concluded that the absence of a clear legal mandate requiring consistent RIA use across sectors allowed for its selective and politically motivated application, often limited to donor-funded initiatives or EU integration efforts. OECD (2020) underlines the negative influence of institutional resistance on RIA implementation process. This analysis is further strengthened by ISET (2023) underlining that there is a fewer number of RIAs conducted which is caused by the lack of knowledge in state institutions about RIA, and by their low motivation to develop RIAs. Based on the results of the interviews and focus group meetings, it can be concluded that institutional resistance – particularly within parts of the executive and legislative branches – further adversely affects progress, as RIA is often perceived as an externally imposed formality rather than a valuable governance tool.

This perception is further supported by comparative evidence from the region. According to Staronova (2010), based on the cross-country analyses of RIA implementation in Central and Eastern Europe, the quality of RIAs often suffers in environments where institutional resistance, limited administrative capacity, and low political prioritization prevail. As the article demonstrates, high-quality RIAs are marked by clear problem definition, evidence-based analysis, stakeholder engagement, and policy coherence. In contrast, RIAs in weaker institutional settings are frequently treated as procedural formalities, lacking analytical rigor and failing to inform decision-making meaningfully. Georgian experience highlights that despite the existence of a formally well-developed RIA framework, practical application of RIA can have a limited alignment with good governance principles. This reinforces the argument that improving the quality and impact of RIAs requires not only the adoption of formal procedures, but also addressing the underlying institutional conditions that shape their effective implementation.

Thus, based on the findings of the article the research questions can be addressed with the following conclusions:

1) The Organic Law of Georgia on Normative Acts and the Government’s Ordinance N35 on the Approval of Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) Methodology establish a theoretically sound, structured, and evidence-based framework for evaluating the potential impacts of proposed regulations, aligning with key Good Governance principles such as transparency, accountability, stakeholder participation, and evidence-based policymaking. The RIA process is designed to ensure that regulations address clearly defined problems, assess alternative policy options—including maintaining the status quo—and evaluate social, economic, and administrative impacts through a standardized and transparent format. However, the methodology also allows for several exemptions that raise Good Governance concerns, such as broadly excluding laws related to budget, defense, or security, and permitting government discretion to bypass RIA in urgent cases or if it is initiated by the member of the Parliament of Georgia. Such exemptions can undermine transparency, accountability, and public participation. Additionally, the exclusion of Parliament-initiated legislation and the use of legislative bundling to avoid RIA requirements introduce inconsistencies and weaken the integrity of the process. These exemptions are subject of the further research to conclude whether they are being used as an opportunity for raising the efficiency of the good governance or as a legal mechanism for evasion of implementation of RIAs. For the RIA framework to fully adhere to good governance standards, these exceptions must be narrowly defined, publicly justified, and subject to oversight to prevent misuse. Overall, while the legislative basis for RIA in Georgia reflects the core phases and objectives of a sound regulatory process, its practical alignment with Good Governance depends heavily on the consistent and transparent application of these standards.

2) Following the evaluation of each Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) based on the principles of Good Governance, as outlined in Annex 2, the authors developed a summary presented in Table #2. This table categorizes the assessed RIAs into three performance tiers according to their percentage alignment with Good Governance criteria. According to the Table #2, 40.6%—of the RIAs can be classified as high performers; 37.8% are mid-level performers, indicating only moderate compliance, and 21.6% of the RIAs show low or no alignment with Good Governance principles. While these assessments incorporate several fundamental elements of good governance, they reveal notable deficiencies in areas such as accountability, public participation, and overall effectiveness and efficiency, indicating substantial room for improvement. The last category of RIAs comprising with documents which show no alignment with the principles of Good Governance, illustrate that these cases highlight significant structural and procedural shortcomings, underscoring the need for comprehensive institutional reforms to improve the quality, credibility, and impact of the RIA process.

While the formal legislative and methodological framework for Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) in Georgia reflects the foundational principles of Good Governance – namely, transparency, accountability, participation, and evidence-based policymaking – the practical implementation of these principles remains significantly limited and inconsistent. The gap between the normative design and actual practice of RIAs illustrates broader systemic challenges in the country’s governance landscape. Addressing these deficiencies requires more than technical reforms. It demands a stronger political commitment to institutional accountability, a coordinated and adequately resourced public administration, and the internalization of governance norms as intrinsic values rather than external obligations. Without such systemic improvements, RIAs in Georgia will likely continue to function as procedural formalities rather than as effective instruments of democratic and evidence-based policymaking.

References

Adelle C., Macrae D., Marusic A., & Naru F. (2015). New development: Regulatory impact assessment in developing countries—tales from the road to good governance, Public Money & Management, 35:3, 233-238, https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2015.1027500.

Brenner, D., & Fazekas, M. (2020). Legislative Effects of Regulatory Impact Assessment: A Comparative Event History Analysis of Modifications of Law in France, Italy, Hungary and the UK. Working Paper Series, GTI- WP/2020:03. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.26411.05926/1.  

Carroll, P. (2010). Does regulatory impact assessment lead to better policy?, Policy and Society, Volume 29, Issue 2, Pages 113–122, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2010.03.009.

Council of Europe. (2008). Centre of Expertise for Multilevel Governance, 12 Principles of Good Democratic Governance, available at: https://www.coe.int/en/web/centre-of-expertise-for-multilevel-governance/12-principles#{%2225565951%22:[6]}. 

Council of the European Union. (2014). Joint press release following the first Association Council meeting between the European Union and Georgia [Press release]. Available at:

https://enlargement.ec.europa.eu/news/joint-press-release-following-first-association-council-meeting-between-european-union-and-georgia-2014-11-18_en.

Deighton-Smith, R., Erbacci, A. & Kauffmann, C. (2016). “Promoting inclusive growth through better regulation: The role of regulatory impact assessment”, OECD Regulatory Policy Working Papers, No. 3, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5jm3tqwqp1vj-en.

Dunlop, C. & Radaelli, C. (2019). Policy Instruments, Policy Learning and Politics: Impact Assessment in the European Union. 10.4337/9781788118194.00016.

European Commission. (2014). Action document for support to EU-Georgia DCFTA and SMEs. Available at: https://enlargement.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2017-03/eni_2014_c2014_5020_final_annual_action_program_for_georgia_dcfta_and_smes.pdf.

European Commission. (2015). Action document for support to public administration reform in Georgia (PAR). Available at: https://enlargement.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2017-03/eni_2015_c2015_7148_annual_action_programme_for_georgia_par.pdf.

European Commission. (2017). Association agenda between the European Union and Georgia: 2017–2020. Available at: https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/annex_ii_-_eu-georgia_association_agenda_text.pdf.

European Commission, 2021, Better Regulation Guidelines, Commission Staff Working Document, available at: https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2021-11/swd2021_305_en.pdf. Accessed 7 August 2025.

Froud, J., & Ogus, A. (1996). ‘Rational’ Social Regulation and Compliance Cost Assessment. Public Administration, 74(2), 221–237. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1996.tb00867.x

Graham, J., Amos, B., & Plumptre, T. (2003). Principles for Good Governance in the 21st century, Policy Brief No. 15, Institute on Governance, available at: https://knowledgecirclesca.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/principles-for-good-governance.pdf.

ISET, (2023). ReforMeter – Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) Institutionalization Reform Assessment Report. Available at: https://reformeter.iset-pi.ge/system/reform_survey_reports/37/en/ReforMeter_II_PPD_Report_ENG_MERGED.pdf.

Jacob, K., Weiland, S., Ferretti, J. & Wascher, D. & Chodorowska, D. (2011). Integrating the Environment in Regulatory Impact Assessments. Available at:  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251570832_Integrating_the_Environment_in_Regulatory_Impact_Assessments.

Jakupec, V. & Kelly, M. (2016). Development aid: Regulatory Impact

Assessment and conditionality, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 34:4, 319-329, DOI:

10.1080/14615517.2016.1228339.

Johnston, M., Good governance: Rule of law, Transparency and accountability, Colgate University New York, 2004,  available at: https://etico.iiep.unesco.org/sites/default/files/2017-09/unpan010193.pdf.

Kakhidze, Sh. & Pipia, M. (2024). Institutionalization of Regulatory Impact Assessment in Georgia: Present and Prospects, Conference Papers, 32nd NISPAcee Annual Conference 2024, Tbilisi, Georgia. Available at: https://www.nispa.org/conference/2024/paperdetail.php?p=6044&pid=6893.

Kamkhaji, J., Ladegaard, P. & Lundkivst P. (2019). Risks when Reforming: Challenges and Sustainability of RIA Systems: Results of the First Systematic Study on RIA Reforms in Developing Countries, European Journal of Risk Regulation, 10 (2019).

Karatas, A. (2022). The Role of Regulatory Impact Analysis in Public Administration: Assessments with a Governance Approach. JOURNAL OF SOCIAL HUMANITIES AND ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCES. 8. 1505-1519. 10.29228/JOSHAS.66269.

Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Zoido, P. (1999). Governance Matters, available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=188568.

Khishtovani, G. (Forthcoming).  The Failure of Regulatory Impact Assessment Reform in Georgia: An Isomorphic Mimicry Perspective, Globalization and Business, Vol. 10, #20.

Khuroshvili, B. (2025). The policy planning system in Georgia: design and implementation challenges, Eastern Journal of European Studies, 16(1), 173-193.

Khuroshvili, B. (2023). Civil Service System in Georgia and its features following the Public Administration Reform. Environment and Society, #8 July, 1-18.

Kirkpatrick, C., & Parker, D. (2007). Regulatory Impact Assessment, Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc. (publisher) https://doi.org/10.4337/9781847208774

Kvashilava, B. (2019). The political constraints for civil service reform in Georgia: History, current affairs, prospects and challenges. Caucasus Survey, 7(3), 214–234.

Ladegaard, P., Lundkvist, P. & Kamkhaji, J. (2018). Giving Sisyphus a Helping Hand: Pathways for Sustainable RIA Systems in Developing Countries. Policy Research Working Paper;No. 8367. World Bank, Washington, DC. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/29494.

Matlhare, M. (2024). Regulatory Impact Assessment in Policy-Making. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23902.04169.

OECD (2025), OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2025, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/56b60e39-en.

OECD (2020), Regulatory Impact Assessment, OECD Best Practice Principles for Regulatory Policy, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/7a9638cb-en.

OECD (2018), OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2018, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264303072-en.

OECD (2017), Chile Evaluation Report: Regulatory Impact Assessment, http://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/Chile-Evaluation-Full-Report-web.pdf.

OECD (2015), Regulatory Policy in Perspective: A Reader’s Companion to the OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2015, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264241800-en.

Organic Law of Georgia on Normative Acts, date of issuing 22/10/2009, registration code: 010.240.010.05.001.003.647, Parliament of Georgia, Legislative Herald of Georgia, date of publishing 09/11/2009.

Ordinance N35 of the Government of Georgia On the Approval of Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) Methodology, date of issuing 17/01/2020, registration code: 010240010.10.003.021743, Government of Georgia, Website of the Government of Georgia, date of publishing: 20/01/2020.

Parigi, K. V., Geeta, P. & Kailasam R. (2004). Ushering in Transparency for Good Governance, available at: https://www.studocu.com/in/document/pondicherry-university/ima-political-science/ushering-in-transparency/123471606.

The Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018 (Evidence Act), Pubic Law No. 115-435, 01.14.2019, available at: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4174/text.

Radaelli, C. (2005). The diffusion of regulatory impact analysis – Best practice or lesson-drawing?. European Journal of Political Research. 43(5):723 – 747. DOI: 10.1111/j.0304-4130.2004.00172.x.

Rekhviashvili, L. (2013). Development and the role of the state: Visions of post-revolutionary Georgian government. Caucasus Social Science Review, 1(1), 1–20.

Rogowski, Wojciech & Joński, Kamil. (2018). Assessing Regulatory Impact Assessments in Poland – government vs. private sector expectations on likely policy outcomes. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329060061_Assessing_Regulatory_Impact_Assessments_in_Poland_-_government_vs_private_sector_expectations_on_likely_policy_outcomes.

Sari, A. (2023). The Impact of Good Governance on the Quality of Public Management Decision Making. Journal of Contemporary Administration and Management (ADMAN). 1. 39-46. DOI: 10.61100/adman.v1i2.21.

Staronova, K. (2010). Regulatory Impact Assessment: Formal Institutionalization and Practice. Journal of Public Policy, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 117-136. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1963143.

Timm, C. (2013). Economic regulation and state interventions: Georgia’s move from neoliberalism to state-managed capitalism. PFH Forschungspapiere, 2013/03.

The Administration of Government of Georgia (2015). Public Administration Reform Roadmap 2020. Available at: https://www.gov.ge/files/425_49309_322150_15.07.21-PublicAdministrationReformRoadmap2020(Final)(1).pdf.

Turnpenny, J., Radaelli, C., Jordan, A. & Jacob, K. (2009). The Policy and Politics of Policy Appraisal: Emerging Trends and New Directions. Journal of European Public Policy – J EUR PUBLIC POLICY. 16. 640-653. DOI: 10.1080/13501760902872783.

United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, What is Good Governance?, 2009, available at: https://www.unescap.org/resources/what-good-governance.

United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, available at: https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda.

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 2024. Multi-Criteria Analysis in Regulatory Impact Assessment in Georgia Research, available at: https://shorturl.at/RzERK.

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 2011. Governance principles, institutional capacity and quality, available at: https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/publications/Towards_SustainingMDGProgress_Ch8.pdf.

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (1997). Governance for Sustainable Human Development. UNDP Policy Document, available at: https://www.undp-aciac.org/publications/other/undp/governance/undppolicydoc97-e.pdf.

USAID – Governing for Growth (G4G) in Georgia. (2015). Recommendations on RIA national framework of Georgia.

van Doeveren, V. (2011). Rethinking Good Governance: Identifying Common Principles. Public Integrity, 13(4), 301–318, available at: https://doi.org/10.2753/PIN1099-9922130401.

Welch, D., Waddington, R. (2005). Introducing Regulatory Impact Assessment in Developing Countries: the Case of Uganda, International Conference on Reforming the Business Environment: Cairo, Egypt, available at: https://regulatoryreform.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Uganda-RIA-in-developing-countries-case-of-Uganda-2005.pdf.

World Bank Group. (2018). Global Indicators of Regulatory Governance: Worldwide Practices of Regulatory Impact Assessments. Available at: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/905611520284525814/pdf/Global-Indicators-of-Regulatory-Governance-Worldwide-Practices-of-Regulatory-Impact-Assessments.pdf.

Annex 1: Set of analytical questions applied to each RIA document.

NSet of Analytical QuestionsCorrelation of the Principles of Good Governance with the Analytical Questions
1Does the Regulatory Impact Assessment align with the template structure outlined in Ordinance N 35 of the Government of Georgia?Accountability; Transparency
2Is the discussed RIA a standard or in-depth assessment?Accountability; Transparency
3Was there any specific method used to identify and describe the problem?Evidence-Based Policy;
4Is the scale of the regulatory problem described by using qualitative or quantitative data?Effectiveness & Efficiency; Evidence-Based Policy;
5Are the intervention objectives clearly defined?Effectiveness & Efficiency; Rule of Law;
6Has the experience of another country been utilized in the development of alternative scenarios?Evidence-Based Policy; Participation; Responsiveness
7Were multiple alternatives considered?Effectiveness & Efficiency;
8Were direct and indirect impacts identified for each alternative during the impact analysis?Effectiveness & Efficiency;
9Was a specific method used to evaluate alternatives?Evidence-Based Policy;
10Was a multi-criteria analysis applied?Accountability; Transparency
11Were stakeholders involved in the RIA development process?Participation;
12Did RIA preparation take a specific period of time (ex., from three to six months)?Accountability; Participation; Responsiveness
13Was RIA initiated by a public institution, private sector, or international organization?Rule of Law; Participation
14Was there a specific motivation behind the preparation of the RIA?Rule of Law; Responsiveness
15Did the RIA preparation lead to a specific outcome (ex., such as amendment to the legislation)?[6]Rule of Law; Responsiveness
16Is there information indicated on RIA document about the implementing organization? Transparency

Annex 2. Mapping the Quality of RIA Documents to Good Governance Principles.

NTitleEffectiveness and efficiency  Rule of Law  Accountability  Evidence-based Policy  Transparency  Participation  Responsiveness  ScorePercentage of Alignment to the Principles of Good Governance
1Regulatory impact assessment of the draft law on food loss and waste44433342589%
2Regulatory impact assessment of ILO C156 – workers with family responsibilities convention43434322382.1%
3Assessment of the regulatory impact of changes to labor legislation on labor rights and conditions22233211553%
4On minimum insolation requirements for buildings323434322 78.5% 
5The simplified Regulatory Impact Assessment of the technical regulation on the Limitation of Emissions of VOCs due to the use of organic solvents in certain paints and varnishes and vehicle refinishing products 00000000 0.00 %
6Regulatory Impact Assessment Report – Dispute Resolution Board424343121 75%
7Preliminary cost-benefit analysis of the draft law on public procurement00000000 0.00 %
8On Amendments to the Law of Georgia on Insurance423333119 67.8%
9Regulatory Impact Assessment ILO Convention 183 on Maternity Protection434343223 82.1% 
10Regulatory Impact Assessment ILO Convention 189 on Domestic Workers434343223 82.1% 
11Assessment of the impact of the regulation of technical regulations on radio equipment213323115 53.5% 
12EQUITY CROWDFUNDING REGULATORY IMPACT ASSESSMENT111313111 39.2% 
13Ex-ante Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) for improvement of inter-city connections in Georgia00000000 0.00 
14Ex-ante Regulatory Impact Assessment of implementation of ILO Instruments. The Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No 81).00000000 0.00 
15Ex-ante Regulatory Impact Assessment of implementation of ILO Instruments. The Protocol of 2014 to the Forced Labour Convention, 193000000000 0.00 
16Ex-ante Regulatory Impact Assessment of implementation of ILO Instruments. The Violence and Harassment Convention, 2019 (No. 190)00000000 0.00 
17Regulatory Impact Assessment for Policy to Support Milk and Dairy Products00000000 0.00 
18Impact assessment of local tourism tax regulation444343224 85.7% 
19Assessing the impact of energy tariff regulation on households, businesses and industry00000000 0.00 
20Assessing the impact of regulating community engagement standards in new development projects00000000 0.00 
21Assessing the impact of regulating local requirements on the Georgian renewable energy industry00000000 0.00 
22Regulatory Impact Assessment on Draft Law on Investment Funds00000000 0%
23Regulatory Impact Assessment on Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) in the Pharmaceutical Sector422333118 64.2% 
24Regulatory impact assessment (RIA) on the draft law on agritourism00000000 0% 
25Regulatory impact assessment (RIA) of the draft law on soil protection00000000 0% 
26Assessing the Impact of Ex-Post Regulation of Profit Tax Reform in Georgia`00000000 0% 
27Assessment of the impact of the new regulatory framework for accounting, reporting and auditing122123213 46.4% 
28Regulatory Impact Assessment on High Mountainous Region Designation of Energy Development and Access413341016 57.1% 
29Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) of the Draft Law of Georgia on Windbreaks424343121 75% 
30Regulatory impact assessment of the selected topics under the draft law on rehabilitation and collective satisfaction of creditors332332218 64.2% 
31Summary of the Impact Assessment of the Draft Law of Georgia on Energy and Water Supply00000000 0%
32Regulatory Impact Assessment of the Draft Law On Consumer Rights Protection32242331967.8% 
33Regulatory Impact Assessment of the Draft Law of Georgia On Physical Education and Sports 223233217 60.7%
34Assessing the impact of regulating renewable energy support schemes00000000 0% 
35RIA – Technical assistance to the Government of Georgia in the development of the Energy Efficiency Law00000000 0% 
36 RIA on the electrical and electronic products market00000000 0% 
37Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) of proposed Energy Law on Electricity Prices00000000 0%
38Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) of Proposed Energy Law on Natural Gas Prices00000000 0% 
39Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) on the Employment Mechanism in Georgia222232114 50% 
40RIA on Certain Aspects of Draft Law on Tourism00101002 7.1% 
41Regulatory Impact Assessment of Proposed Energy Law on Vulnerable Customers in Georgia212432218 57.1% 
42Impact assessment of electricity trading mechanism regulation224343119 67.8% 
43Regulatory Impact Assessment of the Draft Law of Georgia on Biodiversity33434322278.5% 
44Impact assessment of the regulation of the draft law of Georgia “On Entrepreneurs”433333221 75% 
45Estimated costs associated with the implementation of the draft law of Georgia on the rights of persons with disabilities323233218 64.2%
46Analysis of the impact of VAT tax reform regulation11212108 28.5% 
47Assessing the impact of regulation on funded pension reform33333322071.4% 
48Assessing the impact of the “social cut” reform regulation314344221 75% 
49RIA on The Electricity Trading Mechanism000000000.00 
50RIA Report on the Independent Investigative Mechanism00000000 0.00 
51Regulatory Impact Assessment on the Liberalisation of the System of Measures of Restraint00000000 0.00 
52Retrospective assessment of the Law on State Internal Financial Control121122110 35.7% 
53Regulatory Impact Assessment of Georgia’s Drug Policy Reform313334219 67.8% 
54Regulatory Impact Assessment of the Draft Law of Georgia “On Protection of Consumer Rights”311323114 50% 
55Impact Assessment of the New Spatial Planning and Construction Code of Georgia211222010 35.7% 
56Regulatory Impact Assessment of the Implementation of the Estonian Corporate Income Tax (CIT) Model in Georgia332324320 71.4% 
57Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) of Draft Irrigation/Drainage Tariff Methodology42434312175% 
58Regulatory Impact Assessment on Crop Insurance Reform in Georgia424343121 75%
59Regulatory Impact Assessment Construction Code Team Final42434312175% 
60Regulatory Impact Assessment on Mandatory Immunization in Georgia00000000 0.00 
61Draft Law on Water Management424343121 75% 

[1] This was supported by Shota Rustaveli National Science Foundation of Georgia (SRNSFG) [Grant Number: FR-22-27746. Project Title: Variety of Good Governance Implementation Mechanisms in Hybrid Democracies – Example of Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) Application in Georgia].

[2] Ordinance N35 of the Government of Georgia on the Approval of Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) Methodology, date of issuing 17/01/2020, registration code: 010240010.10.003.021743, Government of Georgia, Website of the Government of Georgia, date of publishing: 20/01/2020.

[3] Executive Order 12291 of Feb. 17, 1981, appear at 46 FR 13193, 3 CFR, 1981 Comp., p. 127, available at: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12291.html. “…in order to reduce the burdens of existing and future regulations, increase agency accountability for regulatory actions, proJavide for presidential oversight of the regulatory process, minimize duplication and conflict of regulations, and insure well-reasoned regulations…”

[4] Organic Law of Georgia on Normative Acts, date of issuing 22/10/2009, registration code: 010.240.010.05.001.003.647, Parliament of Georgia, Legislative Herald of Georgia, date of publishing 09/11/2009.

[5] Ordinance N35 of the Government of Georgia On the Approval of Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) Methodology, date of issuing 17/01/2020, registration code: 010240010.10.003.021743, Government of Georgia, Website of the Government of Georgia, date of publishing: 20/01/2020.

[6] Authors of the research are continuing to work on analysis of RIA Reform in Georgia and further results of the specific outcomes of RIA documents are forthcoming.

Share this content: