Legal and Practical Mechanisms for Youth Policy Implementation in Georgia

Abstract

Youth policy is one of the most important components in the development of a modern democratic state and aims to unlock the potential of young people and strengthen their sense of civic responsibility. As noted in academic circles, citizens play an essential role in strengthening a healthy democracy; whilst the nature of the system of government is determined by the structure and actions of the government, citizens must also play a decisive role in legitimising and validating this structure (Burrows, Abashidze, Mukhiguli, Dundua & Karaia). Accordingly, youth policy is geared towards promoting the development of young people’s potential and strengthening their sense of civic responsibility. In international practice, youth policy is regarded as a social investment that ensures long-term state stability (Denstad, 2009). In Georgia, efforts to prioritise these issues at the policy level have been on the active agenda since 2010, marked by the establishment of the Ministry of Sport and Youth Affairs (Georgian Government Decree No. 183, 2010). It was during this period that the institutionalisation of youth policy began, a process which continued with the adoption of the “State Youth Policy of Georgia” in 2014. According to the document, youth work encompassed educational activities involving and aimed at young people, with their active participation and integration into society identified as a priority objective (Government of Georgia, 2014, p. 5). Nevertheless, the development of the legal framework in Georgia has often failed to address the actual socio-political challenges facing Georgian young people. The development of youth policy in Georgia is reflected in the government’s Action Plan for the period 2015-2020 and the State Strategy for the period 2020-2030, both of which were adopted by a parliamentary resolution. These documents highlight the challenge of low political participation among young people and their under-representation in the decision-making process (Gelkhauri, 2024). The recently adopted “State Youth Strategy 2023-2026” aimed to implement these priorities in a coordinated and transparent manner. However, the relevance of this study stems from the fact that declarations at the normative level often remained purely formal in nature, whilst the mechanisms for their practical implementation remained vague. This problem is typical of countries in democratic transition, where a significant “implementation gap” arises between the formulation and implementation of policy (Hill & Hupe, 2002). Given the importance of this issue, the aim of this study was therefore to analyse the legal foundations of youth policy in Georgia, as well as the practical obstacles to its implementation. To achieve this aim, the following objectives were defined: 1. To examine the development of the legal framework governing youth policy; 2. To conduct a comparative analysis of the priorities set out in state strategies and the institutional mechanisms for their implementation; 3. To identify the structural and resource-related obstacles that hinder the effective implementation of policy documents. The research questions focused on determining the reasons why existing legislation does not meet the actual needs of young people. A qualitative research methodology was applied for the study. Specifically, through a targeted selection of documents, all key legal acts and strategies adopted from 2010 to the present were evaluated using content analysis and secondary source analysis. The MAXQDA software was used for data categorisation, which enabled the coding of implementation barriers. The theoretical framework of this study is based on Richard Elmore’s theory of policy implementation, in particular the ‘backward mapping’ approach (Elmore, 1979). Elmore argues that the success of a policy depends less on its hierarchical “top-down” perfection and more on how effectively those implementing it work at the actual point of service delivery. In the Georgian context, this theory helps to explain the phenomenon of ‘strategic discrepancy’: even if the state adopts high-calibre strategies at the central level, their effectiveness is lost in local communities or in inter-agency cooperation due to a lack of resources and bureaucratic hurdles. According to Elmore, policy planning should begin with an analysis of the capacities of the unit closest to the beneficiaries (young people) to ensure that the document does not become a mere ‘wish list’ that remains on paper. This study shows that the shortcomings in Georgia are caused precisely by the failure to take these lower levels into account. The study of the Georgian case will make a significant contribution to the international academic discourse, as it adds to our understanding of the evolution of youth policy in the countries of the ‘Eastern Partnership’. The Georgian experience represents a unique case that illustrates how Western standards are adapted within a post-Soviet institutional context. The novelty of the topic stems from the lack of critical analyses of the Youth Strategy 2023-2026 within the Georgian academic sphere. In practice, the research findings will assist state institutions in identifying weaknesses in the policy implementation process and developing more effective mechanisms. The work also lays the groundwork for comparative analyses in the context of post-Soviet countries and facilitates the integration of Georgian experiences into the international academic discourse.