Abstract This article examines the implementation of Georgia’s 2020 COVID-19 cash and non-cash economic assistance program through an integrated policy implementation framework combining top-down and bottom-up approaches. Drawing on qualitative interview material, documentary analysis, and contemporaneous policy sources, the study analyses how policy design choices, institutional arrangements, and administrative practices shaped the translation of emergency economic measures into practice within a highly centralised yet operationally fragmented governance setting. The findings reveal a persistent divergence between policy formulation and administrative practice. Although the Anti-Crisis Economic Plan was formally ambitious in scope and resource allocation, weaknesses in targeting frameworks, under-specified policy instruments, and limited inter-institutional coordination constrained effective implementation. Complex and burdensome application procedures, insufficient attention to local implementation contexts, and weak feedback mechanisms reduced accessibility for key target groups, particularly self-employed individuals and small business operators, while producing uneven distributive outcomes across beneficiary categories. The analysis demonstrates that crisis-driven policy formulation, when deteched from implementation realities and frontline administrative capacities, generates short-term political responsiveness at the expense of operational coherence. The absence of collaborative policymaking structures, limited incorporation of street-level perspectives, and the prioritisation of rapid policy adoption over implementation readiness contributed to systemic weaknesses that undermined program effectiveness despite substantial fiscal commitment. By situating the Georgian case within wider debates on policy implementation failure and crisis governance, the article advances a theoretically grounded assessment of how institutional capacity and coordination arrangements shape policy outcomes in conditions of uncertainty. The study contributes to policy implementation scholarship by highlighting the institutional foundations of resilient crisis-response policymaking in transitional governance systems, with implications for the design of future emergency economic interventions.
Davit Oboladze (Wed,) studied this question.