1. Introduction

Participatory public policy making, in its broadest theoretical sense, emphasizes the involvement of stakeholders at all stages of the policy cycle. This includes participation in policy development, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation (Howlett, 2011). The active engagement of citizens and stakeholders in public policy is widely recognized as a cornerstone of democratic decision-making, contributing to the effectiveness and legitimacy of public policies. On one hand, this cooperative approach fosters more accountable, transparent, and citizen-centric governance; on the other hand, it empowers stakeholders, including the general public, to exert greater influence over policy decisions and processes (Gaventa & Barrett, 2012).

Today, inclusive approaches are transforming public policy making, with participatory methods seen as central to both democratic governance and the creation of effective public policies (Civil Society Institute, 2022). In this context, the integration of internationally recognized standards—including those promoted by the European Union (EU) and organizations such as the OECD—has gained importance for countries like Georgia. As a candidate for EU membership since 2023, throughout the decades, Georgia has undergone a substantial transformation of its public policy framework, aligning its systems and practices with EU norms and values. These include principles of good governance, transparency, and inclusivity, as articulated in the 2014 Association Agreement and reinforced through OECD/SIGMA guidance (OECD/SIGMA, 2018).

This alignment, often linked to the concept of Europeanization, involves the spread of EU policies and governance models to non-member states. Radaelli (2000) describes Europeanization as the process by which EU influence reshapes domestic political systems and public policy institutions. In Georgia, this process has been motivated by both normative aspirations and the need to comply with formal requirements. While Georgia has adopted participatory mechanisms to meet these requirements, this study examines the extent to which these practices have been implemented within Georgian ministries. Although Europeanization scholarship encompasses more than just participatory governance, recent EU instruments—such as the White Paper on European Governance (2001), the Lisbon Treaty (2007), and SIGMA Principles (2018, 2021)—emphasize inclusive, participatory policymaking as a hallmark of democratic public administration (European Commission, 2001); (Treaty of Lisbon, 2007).

Since the launch of Georgia's Public Administration Reform (PAR) in 2015, aligning public policy with EU governance principles has become a priority. With support from the EU and OECD/SIGMA, this reform sought to enhance institutional coordination and policy planning through a results-based framework inspired by the European Neighbourhood Policy. One of the central goals of the reform has been the integration of participatory approaches into policy development, marking a transition from traditional "top-down" decision-making toward more inclusive governance models (Administration of the Government of Georgia, 2015).

While many studies have examined Georgia’s broader Europeanization course, fewer have focused specifically on how participatory mechanisms have been institutionalized at the ministerial level. This article seeks to address that gap by examining the extent to which European standards have shaped participatory approaches in Georgian ministries from 2015 to 2023. The analysis focuses on institutional arrangements, stakeholder engagement mechanisms, the effectiveness of participatory practices, and the contextual factors that shape these developments. This study also identifies key institutional and contextual factors—such as administrative legacy, bureaucratic capacity, civil society capacity, and political leadership—that mediate the influence of European standards on participatory governance practices. The analysis draws on documentary evidence and interviews with public officials, and is limited to ministry-level perspectives as part of an ongoing dissertation project. Perspectives from civil society, donors, and external stakeholders will be incorporated in a later research phase, broadening the empirical scope.

This study explores how participatory practices—particularly public consultations—have been incorporated into public policy development, and to what extent they align with EU principles. It also identifies key institutional and contextual factors that influence this process, and considers whether participatory practices are moving beyond formal compliance toward more substantive engagement. The findings may offer useful considerations for Georgia and other post-Soviet states engaged in administrative reforms shaped by Europeanization.

2. Theoretical Framework

The integration of participatory approaches in Georgian ministries is situated within the evolving theoretical discourse of Europeanization. Initially developed to explain institutional convergence among EU member states, the concept has expanded to encompass candidate and neighbourhood countries, where EU norms and governance practices diffuse into domestic settings through both formal incentives and normative pressures (Featherstone & Radaelli, 2003). In these contexts, Europeanization not only introduces institutional structures but also reshapes policymaking logics and administrative culture.

Drawing on the work of Börzel & Risse (2009) and Schimmelfennig (2015), this article uses three complementary types of Europeanization to analyze the Georgian case:

Top-down Europeanization: This occurs when the EU uses its leverage (conditionality, technical assistance, and agreements like the Association Agreement) to shape domestic policy.

Horizontal Europeanization: This involves cross-national learning and policy transfer. For Georgia, this is evident in its adoption of public administration reforms from Central and Eastern European states.

Sociological (or normative) Europeanization: This focuses on how countries internalize EU norms related to things like transparency, accountability, and participatory governance.

Although initially formulated for institutional convergence, these models are adaptable for analysing the institutionalization of participatory policymaking under EU influence. The SIGMA Principles of Public Administration—jointly updated by the OECD and the European Commission in 2021—explicitly include public consultation and stakeholder engagement as core performance benchmarks, reinforcing the view that administrative modernization requires participatory legitimacy (OECD/SIGMA, 2021).

This study adopts a dual-institutionalist perspective. Drawing from rational institutionalism, it interprets domestic reforms as strategic responses to EU incentives. From the sociological institutionalist angle, it also considers how participatory values become internalized as normative commitments over time (Radaelli, 2000). Georgia’s reform course reflects this hybrid logic: while procedural adoption of EU-aligned consultation mechanisms stems from compliance, deeper ideational shifts reflect growing bureaucratic adaptation and professionalization.

Radaelli (2000) identifies Europeanization as a multidirectional process involving adaptation pressure, learning, and norm internalization, all mediated through national “veto points,” institutional capacities, and actor coalitions. Featherstone & Radaelli (2003) and Grabbe (2003) stress the importance of domestic political will and administrative capacity in filtering EU influence. These ideas are central to this study’s focus on ministry-level institutions as key mediators of reform outcomes.

Building on the Europeanization literature, (Radaelli, 2000; Dimitrova, 2010), this study identifies four key contextual and institutional factors shaping participatory governance in Georgian ministries. These mediators determine the effectiveness and sustainability of participatory practices:

Administrative Legacy: Georgia’s historically centralized administrative structures—shaped during its early post-independence transition—continue to present challenges for the adoption of more decentralized and participatory governance models aligned with EU norms (Verheijen, 2007). As Dimitrova (2010) notes, such institutional legacies can foster inertia and resistance to reform, requiring ministries to reconcile established bureaucratic routines with the demands of inclusive policymaking.

Political Will: The level of political commitment among ministry leadership remains a decisive factor in shaping the depth and quality of participatory engagement. In the absence of strong political ownership, participatory mechanisms may be implemented superficially, with compliance driven more by external incentives than by genuine democratic intent (Grabbe, 2003).

Institutional Capacity: Effective participatory governance depends on the availability of administrative resources, professional expertise, and clear operational procedures. Ministries with more developed institutional capacity are better positioned to embed consultation practices meaningfully into their policymaking processes (Verheijen, 2007).

EU and OECD/SIGMA Standards: External conditionalities—such as those embedded in association agreements, the SIGMA framework, and EU technical assistance—serve as key reform drivers. However, their transformative potential depends on domestic adaptation, ensuring that externally promoted standards are internalized and operationalized within national institutions (OECD/SIGMA, 2018).

These factors, as highlighted in the Europeanization literature, interact to shape the extent to which Georgian ministries institutionalize participatory governance in line with EU principles. Understanding them is essential for interpreting how the broader Europeanization framework shapes specific outcomes within Georgian ministries. According to this framework, Europeanization produces two main types of outcomes:

Structural outcomes: formalization of public consultation procedures, establishment of digital policy portals, and adoption of standardized operating protocols;

Ideational outcomes: internalization of participatory norms, enhanced legitimacy of decision-making, and improved responsiveness to societal input (Radaelli, 2000; Dimitrova, 2010).

These outcomes are influenced by several key factors:

While civil society has not been the primary initiator of participatory reform in Georgia, its role has gradually expanded through issue-based advocacy, independent monitoring, and donor-supported policy research. Organizations such as the Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association (GYLA), WeResearch, and sectoral NGOs have contributed to public participation, particularly during the monitoring and evaluation phases of the policy cycle (GYLA, 2020; WeResearch, 2022). These efforts—often funded by international donors like the EU, UNDP, and USAID—highlight the importance of an active social subsystem in sustaining participatory practices. Nonetheless, existing reports and interviews suggest that civil society engagement is often linked to donor-supported initiatives and may not yet reflect a fully institutionalized, bottom-up culture of democratic participation. (GYLA, 2020; WeResearch, 2022; Interviews with Civil Servants, 2023).

Importantly, these dynamics are not unique to Georgia. Similar pathways are observable in other EU-associated countries like Moldova and Ukraine, which are implementing public administration reforms under the influence of the updated OECD-EU SIGMA framework (OECD, 2023; OECD, 2024). These cases highlight how participatory governance has become a defining criterion for EU-aligned administrative reform, and suggest that Europeanization is increasingly shaped by a legitimacy-based rationale alongside traditional compliance mechanisms.

Ongoing initiatives—such as the 2021 joint OECD–EU revision of the SIGMA Principles—highlight that administrative modernization is inseparable from participatory legitimacy and inclusive governance (OECD/SIGMA, 2021).

In this sense, participation is not an optional feature but a foundational element of Europeanization, deeply embedded in EU instruments such as the White Paper on Governance (2001), the Lisbon Treaty, and the updated SIGMA Principles. These frameworks view inclusive policymaking as both a democratic norm and a legitimacy-enhancing mechanism, making participation an essential benchmark for countries aligning with EU standards.

3. Methodology

4. Forms and Methods of Public Participatory Approaches in its Policymaking Processes in the EU

The European Union (EU) has prioritized participatory governance to address challenges of democratic legitimacy and to promote inclusive, accountable policymaking. Participation in EU processes is not merely symbolic; it is considered integral to improving regulatory quality, fostering institutional trust, and empowering citizens and civil society organizations in policy formulation (Alemanno, 2023; Bozzini, 2007). This commitment is reflected in the EU’s broader emphasis on “good governance,” codified in foundational documents such as the White Paper on European Governance (European Commission, 2001), Article 11 of the Lisbon Treaty, (Treaty of Lisbon, 2007); and OECD/SIGMA Principles of Public Administration (OECD/SIGMA, 2021).

The EU’s Better Regulation Agenda particularly institutionalizes participatory approaches, embedding structured opportunities for stakeholder input throughout the policy cycle. A central mechanism is the “Have Your Say” platform (European Commission, 2024), which enables stakeholders—including citizens, NGOs, businesses, and experts—to provide feedback on legislative proposals, delegated acts, and policy evaluations. This initiative exemplifies the EU’s dual commitment to input legitimacy (via public consultation) and output legitimacy (via evidence-based policy outcomes), reinforcing the normative and procedural expectations of democratic policymaking (Deligiaouri & Suiter, 2021).

These participatory mechanisms, which include open consultations, targeted stakeholder meetings, online surveys, and structured deliberative forums, are applied across policy areas and stages of the policy cycle. They are designed to foster transparency, civic inclusion, and policy coherence (Quittkat, 2011: 63–65). Crucially, these tools are no longer experimental; they have become integral to EU governance structures and serve as benchmarks for countries aligning with EU norms—particularly in the context of enlargement and neighbourhood policy.

In this regard, the EU’s participatory instruments provide an important comparative lens for evaluating four dimensions of participatory governance in Georgia’s ministries: (1) institutional arrangements underpinning policy planning, (2) stakeholder engagement mechanisms, (3) effectiveness of consultation practices, and (4) contextual factors mediating implementation. As Georgia aligns its public policy framework with European standards, these mechanisms represent both a normative model and a functional reference point.

Nonetheless, academic evaluations point to persistent gaps between procedural design and actual influence. Scholars argue that public consultations can sometimes function as tokenistic exercises, with limited weight in final decisions—particularly when institutional preferences dominate over public input (Shore, 2011; Mahoney & Beckstrand, 2011). There is also variation across member states in how participatory standards are applied, depending on administrative capacity, civic engagement culture, and policy traditions (Bunea, 2016).

These limitations highlight that institutionalizing participatory tools does not guarantee their effectiveness—a lesson that is directly relevant to Georgia’s ongoing reform process and helps frame the comparative value of EU experience.

Civil society organizations, especially NGOs, have emerged as critical intermediaries in these processes. They not only amplify public voices but also serve as epistemic communities, translating technical policy content into accessible formats and connecting citizen concerns with institutional agendas (Bozzini, 2007; Warleigh, 2001). Their involvement is emblematic of the EU’s multi-level governance architecture, in which civil society is central to ensuring transparency, inclusion, and accountability.

In conclusion, although the EU has successfully institutionalized a wide array of participatory instruments, their effectiveness remains uneven. Their influence is highly contingent on contextual variables—including political will, bureaucratic professionalism, administrative legacy, and societal mobilization. These are the same factors that condition the success of participatory governance efforts in Georgia, and as such, they provide a valuable analytical framework for evaluating the country’s progress within the broader process of Europeanization (Dimitrova, 2010; Grabbe, 2003).

5. Integration of Participatory Approaches into Georgia's Public Administration: Achievements and Obstacles

6. Summary of Empirical Findings

This study examined the integration of participatory policymaking practices into Georgia’s public administration through the lens of Europeanization. The findings confirm a gradual yet tangible institutional alignment with EU governance norms—particularly in policy planning, consultation standardization, and stakeholder engagement. Since 2015, participatory mechanisms have been increasingly formalized within ministerial procedures, culminating in the adoption of Decree #629 and the implementation of OECD/SIGMA-inspired frameworks. These reforms have contributed to the establishment of structured consultation processes and enhanced procedural transparency.

However, despite these structural advancements, inclusive and meaningful citizen participation remains a challenge. While legal mandates now require stakeholder engagement, actual citizen involvement tends to be episodic and often occurs only in the later phases of the policy cycle. Consequently, opportunities for deliberation, co-creation, and agenda-setting remain limited. This pattern suggests that reform efforts have been largely compliance-driven, producing structural rather than fully realized ideational outcomes—an observation that aligns with existing Europeanization literature.

To enhance the influence and legitimacy of public consultations, the study identifies several critical needs: improving outreach and awareness, ensuring the accessibility of consultation formats, and designing targeted approaches to engage marginalized groups. In this context, civil society organizations and local authorities could play a strategic role in expanding participation beyond the policy communities in the capital and engaging broader segments of the public. Although these actors were not included in the current institutional phase of the research, their role will be addressed in future empirical work. This limitation—acknowledged in the methodology—reflects the study’s focus on ministerial-level processes.

EU financial and technical assistance has been an important enabler in this context. Donor programs—particularly from the EU, UNDP, USAID, and OECD—have supported reform through benchmarking, training, and the development of consultation tools. Examples from countries like Belgium and Sweden, known for their inclusive governance systems, provide valuable reference points for ongoing institutional learning and horizontal diffusion.

These findings reinforce key insights from Europeanization theory, particularly the understanding that sustainable reform depends not only on legal alignment with EU standards but also on sufficient domestic political will and administrative capacity. In Georgia’s case, ministries have generally complied with procedural mandates but show varying levels of normative commitment to participatory governance. This reflects the study’s theoretical proposition that Europeanization is shaped by contextual mediators—including institutional legacy, civil service capacity, political leadership, and civil society development.

Conceptually, the study confirms that Europeanization is neither linear nor unidirectional but involves a dynamic interplay between external conditionality and domestic adaptation. Georgian ministries have selectively adopted and interpreted EU participatory norms, shaped by a combination of incentives, learning, and policy priorities. This hybrid dynamic—combining rational institutionalism (strategic adaptation) and sociological institutionalism (gradual norm internalization)—aligns with the theoretical framework presented.

By focusing on institutional arrangements, stakeholder engagement mechanisms, the effectiveness of consultation processes, and contextual factors, the study provides a detailed account of how participatory governance is being institutionalized in an EU-associated, emerging democracy. In answering the central research question—how EU-aligned participatory principles have been institutionalized in Georgian ministries between 2015 and 2023, and what institutional and contextual factors have influenced this process—the study concludes that Europeanization functions both as a driver of structural reform and as a potential catalyst for democratic deepening, contingent on the balance between external incentives and domestic reform agency.