Institutionalising Evidence-Based Policymaking in Transitional Governance Systems: Organisational Dynamics of Evidence Use in the Ministry of Justice of Georgia

Abstract This article examines the institutionalisation of evidence-based policymaking (EBPM) within transitional governance systems through an in-depth qualitative case study of Georgia’s Ministry of Justice. Drawing on a critical realist analytical framework, the study interrogates how institutional capacity, political incentives, and data infrastructures interact to shape the production, interpretation, and use of analytical evidence in strategic policy formulation. The analysis is grounded in original empirical material collected through semi-structured interviews with senior policymakers and systematic documentary analysis of strategic frameworks, legislative records, and EU integration instruments. The findings reveal a persistent gap between formal commitments to evidence-informed governance and its practical implementation. While EBPM has been formally embedded within reform strategies aligned with EU accession benchmarks, its substantive application remains constrained by fragmented data architectures, uneven analytical capability across policy units, and a political–administrative environment that prioritises short-term responsiveness over evaluative depth. Evidence use is frequently concentrated within donor-supported structures, generating analytically robust outputs that remain weakly embedded within the core bureaucratic decision-making apparatus. The analysis demonstrates that externally anchored reform trajectories, absent durable national incentives and institutional integration, tend to produce selective and instrumental uses of evidence rather than institutioalised analytical practice. By situating the Georgian case within comparative debates on EBPM in post-Soviet and hybrid governance contexts, the article advances a theoretically grounded analysis of how evidence use is conditioned by institutional design, political calculation, and infrastructural capacity. It contributes to policy scholarship by specifying the institutional configurations under which EBPM can move beyond symbolic alignment and become a durable component of state capacity in transitional administrative systems.