Skip to main content

The EU’s performance in rural Georgia: the common agricultural policy’s relevance, effectiveness, and impact


How the EU interacts with its Eastern neighbours has been researched extensively. How it has performed in this region however has been systemically researched on far fewer occasions. This gap is even more glaring when straying away from policy areas such as trade, rule of law, or democratisation. More than 10 years after the Eastern Partnership’s inauguration, this paper therefore investigates the performance of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy, with a specific focus on its endogenous rural development programme LEADER in Georgia. It finds a mixed picture for the performance attributes relevance, effectiveness, and impact, with differences in performance found between policy instruments and between actors on the local and state level. Therefore, it suggests analysing performance not only across its constituent attributes, but also with a view to specific policy instruments and actors beyond the central government.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.


  1. Liaison entre actions de développement de l'économie rurale, or links between actions for the development and rural economy.

  2. 162 Million Euros from 2013 to 2020 (Delegation of the European Union to Georgia 2018; European Commission 2015: 10).


  • Allen, D. and M. Smith. 1990. Western Europe’s presence in the contemporary international arena. Review of International Studies, 16 (1): 19–37.

  • Baltag, D., and M. Smith. 2015. EU and member state diplomacies in Moldova and Ukraine: Examining EU diplomatic performance post-Lisbon. European Integration Online Papers 19 (5): 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baltag, D. and I. Romanyshyn. 2017. The challenge of analysing the performance of the European Neighbourhood Policy. In The Routledge Handbook on the European Neighbourhood Policy, ed. T. Schumacher, A. Marchetti, and T.Demmelhuber, 39–49. London: Routledge.

  • Barclay, C. and K.-M. Osei-Bryson. 2010. Project performance development framework: An approach for developing performance criteria & measures for information systems (IS) projects. International Journal of Production Economics, 124(1), 272–292.

  • Bock, B. 2015. Gender mainstreaming and rural development policy; the trivialisation of rural gender issues. Gender, Place & Culture 22 (5): 731–745.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Börzel, T. and T. Risse. 2007. Europeanization: The domestic impact of European union politics. In The SAGE Handbook of European Union Politics, ed. K. Jørgensen, M. Pollack, and B. Rosamond, 483–504. London: SAGE.

  • Börzel, T., and T. Risse. 2012. From Europeanisation to diffusion: Introduction. West European Politics 35 (1): 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, G., Y. Choi, and R. Walker. 2007. Accountability, corruption and government effectiveness in Asia: An exploration of world bank governance indicators. International Public Management Review 8 (2): 204–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burlyuk, O. 2017. The ‘oops!’ of EU engagement abroad: Analyzing unintended consequences of EU external action: Unintended consequences of EU external action. JCMS Journal of Common Market Studies 55 (5): 1009–1025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burlyuk, O., and G. Noutcheva. 2019. Unintended consequences of EU external action. The International Spectator 54 (1): 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cadier, D. 2019. The geopoliticisation of the EU’s Eastern Partnership. Geopolitics 24 (1): 71–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Channon, J., M. Mautner Markhof, R. Devrikyan, and B. Marinova. 2017. Evaluation of ENPARD 1, March 2013–2017: Final Report. No. 2017/386933/1.

  • Chaudhry, H., and K. Gviniashvili. 2018. Terminal evaluation of support to rural development in Georgia, United Nations development programme,, accessed 18 October 2019.

  • Christou, G. 2010. European Union security logics to the east: The European Neighbourhood Policy and the Eastern Partnership. European Security 19 (3): 413–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Csurgó, B., and I. Kovách. 2016. The LEADER programme in Hungary: Bottom-up development with top-down control? In Evaluating the European approach to rural development: Grass-roots experiences of the LEADER programme, ed. L. Granberg, K. Andersson, and I. Kovách, 53–77. London; New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dandashly, A., and G. Noutcheva. 2019. Unintended consequences of EU democracy support in the European Neighbourhood. The International Spectator 54 (1): 105–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dax, T., W. Strahl, J. Kirwan, and D. Maye. 2016. The Leader programme 2007–2013: Enabling or disabling social innovation and neo-endogenous development? Insights from Austria and Ireland. European Urban and Regional Studies 23 (1): 56–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delcour, L. 2013. Meandering Europeanisation. EU policy instruments and policy convergence in Georgia under the Eastern Partnership. East European Politics 29 (3): 344–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delegation of the European Union to Georgia. 2018. EU and Georgia launch two largescale projects to support Sustainable Rural Development under EU ENPARD.

  • EEAS. 2019. European External Action Service European Commission. Available from Accessed 21 Oct 2019.

  • ELARD. (n.d). Organization, accessed 17 November 2020.

  • Emerson, M., and T. Kovziridze. 2018. Deepening EU-Georgian relations: What, why and how?, 2nd ed. London: Rowman & Littlefield International.

    Google Scholar 

  • ENPARD. 2019a Members of the EU-supported local action group in Dedoplitskaro hosted Estonian LAGs [online],, accessed 11 February 2020.

  • ENPARD. 2019b. Winners of first stage RD grant competition in Khulo municipality,, accessed 23 February 2020.

  • Esparcia, J., J. Escribano, and A. Buciega. 2016. A perspective of LEADER method in Spain based on the analysis of local action groups. In Evaluating the European approach to rural development: Grass-roots experiences of the LEADER programme, ed. L. Granberg, K. Andersson, and I. Kovách, 33–51. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. 2006. The Leader approach: a basic guide. Luxembourg: EUR-OP.

  • European Commission. 2013. Commission implementing decision of 2.8.2013 on the annual action programme 2013 in favour of Georgia to be financed from the general budget of the European Union. Brussels, No. C (2013) 5181 final.

  • European Commission. 2015. Annex 2 of the commission implementing decision on annual action programme 2015 in favour of Georgia: Action document for the European Neighbourhood programme for agriculture and rural development in Georgia, phase II (ENPARD Georgia II), Brussels.

  • European Commission and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. 2020. Joint staff working document: Association implementation report on Georgia, SWD (2020) 30 final.

  • FAO Regional Office for Europe and Central Asia. 2012. Assessment of the agriculture and rural development sectors in the Eastern Partnership countries: Georgia,, accessed 12 October 2019.

  • FAO. 2012. Assessment of the agriculture and rural development sectors in the Eastern Partnership countries—Georgia, Accessed 9 Nov 2020.

  • Geostat. 2020. Population as of 1 January by regions and urban-rural settlements,, accessed 9 November 2020.

  • Gorton, M., C. Hubbard, and L. Hubbard. 2009. The folly of European Union policy transfer: Why the common agricultural policy (CAP) does not fit central and Eastern Europe. Regional Studies 43 (10): 1305–1317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granberg, L., K. Andersson, and I. Kovách. 2016a. Introduction: Leader as an experiment in grass-roots democracy. In Evaluating the European approach to rural development: Grass-roots experiences of the LEADER programme, ed. L. Granberg, K. Andersson, and I. Kovách, 1–12. London: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Granberg, L., J. Nikula, and I. Kopoteva. 2016b. LEADER and possibilities of local development in the Russian countryside. In Evaluating the European approach to rural development: Grass-roots experiences of the LEADER programme, ed. L. Granberg, K. Andersson, and I. Kovách, 111–126. London: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, W. 2005. Pressure politics: A politics of collective consumption? Parliamentary Affairs 58 (2): 366–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutner, T., and A. Thompson. 2010. The politics of IO performance: A framework. The Review of International Organizations 5 (3): 227–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haukkala, H. 2008. The Russian challenge to EU normative power: The case of European neighbourhood policy. The International Spectator, 43(2), 35–47.

  • Héritier, A. 2012. Policy effectiveness and transparency in European policy-making. In The Oxford Handbook of the European Union, ed. Jones, E., A. Menon, S. Weatherhill, 676–689. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Hill, C. 1993. The capability-expectations gap, or conceptualizing europe’s international role. Journal of Common Market Studies, 31 (3), 305–328.

  • Jentleson, B. 2002. The need for praxis: Bringing policy relevance back in. International Security 26 (4): 169–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jørgensen, K., S. Oberthür, and J. Shahin. 2011. Introduction: Assessing the EU’s performance in international institutions–conceptual framework and core findings. Journal of European Integration 33 (6): 599–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jupile, J. and J. Caporaso. 1998. States, Agency and Rules: The european union in global environmental politics. In The European Union in the World Community, ed. Rhodes, C., 213-229. London: Lynne Rienner.

  • Korosteleva, E. 2011. The Eastern Partnership initiative: A new opportunity for neighbours? Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics 27 (1): 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruzel, J. 1994. More a chasm than a gap, but do scholars want to bridge it? Mershon International Studies Review 38 (1): 179–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LAG Akhalkalaki. 2018. List of Akhalkalaki local action group supported projects in the frame of EU/ENPARD funded ‘promoting rural development in Akhalkalaki’ project,, accessed 23 February 2020.

  • Lavenex, S., and F. Schimmelfennig. 2009. EU rules beyond EU borders: Theorizing external governance in European politics. Journal of European Public Policy 16 (6): 791–812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S.-Y., and A. Whitford. 2009. Government effectiveness in comparative perspective. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 11 (2): 249–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lepgold, J. 1998. Is Anyone listening? International relations theory and the problem of policy relevance. Political Science Quarterly 113 (1): 43–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lieven, A. 2001. Imperial outpost and social provider: The Russians and Akhalkalaki,, accessed 21 November 2020.

  • Lovec, M. 2016. European Union’s common agricultural policy reforms: Towards a critical realist approach. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Maurel, M.-C. 2008. Local development stakeholders and the European model: Learning the LEADER approach in the new member states. Sociologický Časopis/Czech Sociological Review 44 (3): 511–529.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Agriculture of Georgia. 2015. Strategy for agricultural development in Georgia 2015–2020,, accessed 14 October 2019.

  • Ministry of Agriculture of Georgia. 2017a. Rural development strategy of Georgia 2017a–2020,, accessed 12 October 2019.

  • Ministry of Agriculture of Georgia. 2017b. Rural development strategy of Georgia action plan 2017b,, accessed 12 October 2019.

  • Ministry of Environment Protection and Agriculture of Georgia. 2018. Rural development strategy action plan for 2018–2020 [online]. Available from: [Accessed 12 Oct 2019].

  • Ministry of Environment Protection and Agriculture of Georgia. 2019. Georgia rural development strategy (2017–2020): 2018–2020 action plan, progress monitoring report for 2018. Tbilisi, Georgia.

  • Papadopoulou, E., N. Hasanagas, and D. Harvey. 2011. Analysis of rural development policy networks in Greece: Is LEADER really different? Land Use Policy 28 (4): 663–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papadimitriou, D., D. Baltag, and N.-C. Surubaru. 2017. Assessing the performance of the European Union in Central and Eastern Europe and in its neighbourhood. East European Politics, 33(1): 1–16.

  • People in Need. 2018. Impact of local action group on Kazbegi municipality,, accessed 18 October 2019.

  • Petrick, M., and P. Weingarten. 2004. The role of agriculture in Central and Eastern European rural development: Engine of change or social buffer? Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO), Studies on the Agricultural and Food Sector in Transition Economies.

  • Peuch, J.-C. 2002. Georgia: Javakheti Armenians’ call for autonomy has Tbilisi on guard, RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty,, accessed 22 April 2020.

  • Pollermann, K., P. Raue, and G. Schnaut. 2017. Input for and output of local governance in rural development. ZBW—German National Library of Economics, No. 173061.

  • Ray, C. 1998. Territory, structures and interpretation—Two case studies of the European Union’s LEADER I programme. Journal of Rural Studies 14 (1): 79–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romanyshyn, I. 2015. Explaining EU effectiveness in multilateral institutions: The case of the arms trade treaty negotiations. Journal of Common Market Studies 53 (4): 875–892.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saari, S., and S. Secrieru. 2019. Doom or bloom for the Eastern Partnership? In The Eastern Partnership a decade on: Looking back, thinking ahead, ed. S. Secrieru and S. Saari, 1–2. Paris: European Institute for Security Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shucksmith, M. 2000. Endogenous development, social capital and social inclusion: Perspectives from leader in the UK. Sociologia Ruralis 40 (2): 208–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tallberg, J., T. Sommerer, T. Squatrito, and M. Lundgren. 2016. The performance of international organizations: A policy output approach. Journal of European Public Policy 23 (7): 1077–1096.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thuesen, A. 2010. Is LEADER elitist or inclusive? Composition of Danish LAG boards in the 2007–2013 rural development and fisheries programmes. Sociologia Ruralis 50 (1): 31–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toal, G., J. O’Loughlin, and K. Bakke. 2020. Are some NGOs really ‘foreign agents’? Here’s what people in Georgia and Ukraine say, openDemocracy,, accessed 23 April 2020.

  • USAID. (2020) Inclusive economic growth,, accessed 18 November 2020.

  • Willems, J., S. Boenigk, and M. Jegers. 2014. Seven trade-offs in measuring nonprofit performance and effectiveness. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 25 (6): 1648–1670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. 2020. Agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added (% of GDP) [online]. Available from:, accessed 20 November 2020.

  • Youngs, R. 2019. Civic activism unleashed: New hope or false dawn for democracy? New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zhukova, S., P. Restrepo Cadavid, G. Cineas, L. Quintero, and S. Zhukova. 2017. Cities in Europe and Central Asia. Washington, DC: World Bank.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Interview 1: EU official, early 2019.

  • Interview 2: EU official, early 2019.

  • Interview 3: EU official, early 2019.

  • Interview 4: EU official, early 2019.

  • Interview 5: EU official, mid-2019.

  • Interview 6: Member State embassy official, late 2018.

  • Interview 7: Civil Society Organisation Representative, mid-2019.

  • Interview 8: Civil Society Organisation Representative, mid-2018.

  • Interview 9: Civil Society Organisation Representative, mid-2018.

  • Interview 10: Civil Society Organisation Representative, mid-2018.

  • Interview 11: Civil Society Organisation Representative, mid-2018.

  • Interview 12: Civil Society Organisation Representative, mid-2018.

  • Interview 13: Government Official, mid-2018.

  • Interview 14: Government Official, mid-2018.

  • Interview 15: Government Official, mid-2018.

  • Interview 16: Agriculture Expert, mid-2018.

  • Interview 17: Agriculture Expert, mid-2018.

  • Interview 18: EU official, late 2019.

Download references


The funding was provided by Horizon 2020 (Grant No. 722826).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura Gelhaus.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Special Issue: The European Union and its Eastern Partnership neighbours: A Framework to Evaluate Performance

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gelhaus, L. The EU’s performance in rural Georgia: the common agricultural policy’s relevance, effectiveness, and impact. Int Polit (2022).

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI:


  • EU external action
  • Performance
  • Eastern Partnership
  • Rural development
  • Agriculture