Policy Briefs
![](https://iset-pi.ge/site_images/filter-icon.png)
- Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation - SDC
- CARE International
- German Economic Team in Georgia - GET
- OXFAM
- United Nations Development Programme - UNDP
- UN Women
- USAID Economic Security Program
- European Union
- FREE Network
- Sweden
![](https://iset-pi.ge/site_images/filter-icon.png)
- Macroeconomic policy
- Agriculture & rural policy
- Energy & environment
- Inclusive growth
- Private sector & competitiveness
- Gender
- Governance
- Green and sustainable development
- Media & democracy
- Covid19
- Regional
![](https://iset-pi.ge/site_images/filter-icon.png)
![](https://iset-pi.ge/site_images/filter-icon.png)
![](https://iset-pi.ge/site_images/filter-icon.png)
![](https://iset-pi.ge/site_images/date.png)
This paper analyses income distribution and poverty reduction in Georgia in the period 2010 to 2017/2018. As we have no data for 2019, our findings do not relate to the most recent distributional policies of the Georgian government. Our results suggest that while Georgia has substantially reduced poverty and income inequality, continuous monitoring of the situation would be helpful.
![](https://iset-pi.ge/site_images/date.png)
Georgia’s agri-food export is concentrated in few products and few undemanding markets, making it highly vulnerable to shocks on a small number of commodity and geographical markets. At the same time, the diversity of climatic conditions and ample water resources create significant growth and diversification potential for Georgian agriculture
![](https://iset-pi.ge/site_images/date.png)
This research paper intended to supplement and complement the following economic policy strategies and plans of the Georgian government in the areas of sustainable and balanced growth.
![](https://iset-pi.ge/site_images/date.png)
Economic reforms announced in the run-up to the parliamentary elections in October 2016 raised concerns about whether Georgia was departing from its path of prudent fiscal policy. A reform of the corporate profit tax and increased infrastructure investment were driving expectations of a 6% of GDP budget deficit in 2017, endangering Georgia’s macroeconomic stability and its reputation with investors.
![](https://iset-pi.ge/site_images/date.png)
Both Georgia and Armenia have been subject to negative external economic shocks, particularly through remittances and exports, in 2014 and 2015, yet the macroeconomic adjustment of the countries appears to have been different. While the GDP growth of both countries remained relatively stable at around 3% in both years, the exchange rate of the Georgian Lari (GEL) depreciated by a 29% in 2014-2015 compared to 15% for the Armenian Dram (AMD).
![](https://iset-pi.ge/site_images/date.png)
Unless its glorious past during the Soviet Union, the Georgian tea sector rebounded in the late 1990s and early 2000s, yet only partially as the economic and political stability of the post-independence period left a mark on the overall productivity of the sector.