Policymaking in the house building industry: Case of Georgia

Abstract

In the work interest, articulation, aggregation, decision-making, and decision implementation processes in the house building industry of Georgia are studied and analyzed. The theoretical frame of the work is the theories of the privileged position of a business, policy community, and policy network. The research is carried out based on descriptions and analyses of specific cases (case studies) taken from the house-building practice of the city of Tbilisi. Articulation of interests is the transformation of specific interests into political demand; aggregation is the combination of different interests in a decision and its implementation. Interest benefits society, its part, the state, or individuals. Political interest is a public decision that will distribute various benefits (in our case, well-being) in favor of society, its part, the state, or a particular individual, which determines its value for each of them. Interests may be perceived and articulated or existing but not be perceived and articulated. If not all interests are articulated, or if they do not have equal influence, they may be aggregated in favor of one dominant interest. The author shares the definition of policy community offered by Paul Pross as the grouping of government agencies, pressure groups, media people, and individuals, including academics, who, for various reasons, have an interest in a particular policy field and attempt to influence it. In the field of housing building, the formation of policy and its implementation is influenced by the construction business, which enjoys almost unlimited lobbying opportunities. This is determined by its economic importance of it, which is the employer and one of the significant sources of replenishment of the budget. Its consumers are voters, which enhances the political significance of it. All this determines the privileged position of constructing a business and makes decision-making centers accessible. Its representatives are widely represented in government structures and directly control the formation and implementation of policy in the construction sector. Therefore, this policy often promotes narrow group interests while ignoring public and other group interests. Construction business interest groups and officials, the sector economy and economic policy committee of Georgian Parliament, the Ministry of Economy and Sustainable Development, as well as, in our case, the Tbilisi City Hall and the relevant Tbilisi City Assembly commissions make up the sub-government that makes and implements policy in the field of housing construction. Such a narrow character almost completely subordinates the policy community to the interests of the construction business, as a result of which the interests of business are almost completely carried out by ignoring the interests of both the whole society and other population groups. This sometimes creates conflicts, but their local and non-political nature, the lack of solidarity, significantly weakens their impact on the policymaking process. The legislation allows broad inclusion of the public in the decision-making. However, the small number of NGOs in the field of construction and the lack of civil society resources, the low level of awareness, organization, and activity, the incompetence of the population, its uncertainty in its capabilities (the struggle does not mean), lack of time, determines passivity even that part of the citizens who directly suffer from construction. Because of this, their interests are ignored at all stages of decision-making. The decision to permit construction is made without identifying the balance of interests and considering the actual circumstances. Construction legislation is almost entirely formed in the interests of the construction business, but this does not mean that there are no such rules that would protect society from the negative impact of construction if the relevant interests are articulated. Decisions made without taking public interests into account create dependence on the past when practically implemented decisions in the past (building permits) significantly narrow the prospects for the city's further development. The belated practical implementation of such decisions in the conditions of the changed configuration of the area structure can become a source of conflict and create a stalemate. Formation and implementation of house-building policy in favor of special interests hinder the country's sustainable development.