doi.org/10.52340/eab.2025.17.04.04

This paper offers a concise analytical overview of Georgia’s geoeconomic development from the medieval era to the present, highlighting how shifts in the global economic order have continuously shaped the country’s political, social, and economic trajectory. It contends that Georgia’s strategic location historically connected it to major regional and transcontinental trade routes, positioning the country both as a vital transit corridor and as a space dependent on external geopolitical and economic powers.
Building on this historical context, the paper addresses Georgia’s contemporary challenges, including rural depopulation, demographic decline, large-scale emigration, regional inequality, and the concentration of economic activity within a limited number of sectors. The study underscores that Georgia’s development has been constrained by weak local self-governance, the absence of capital accumulation at the community (village) level, limited mechanisms for public participation in economic processes, and insufficient industrial capacity.
In this context, the paper introduces the Georgian Community-Corporate Model -a decentralized economic architecture that integrates community ownership, corporate governance, and equitable value distribution. The model establishes a three-tier structure of shareholder entities (village–municipality–state), whereby local residents become the primary beneficiaries of dividends and economic gains. It also incorporates symbolic participation for depopulated villages and settlements located in occupied territories, as well as a limited yet meaningful economic role for Georgian emigrants, thereby ensuring long-term territorial continuity and social inclusiveness.
From a practical perspective, the model links Georgia’s geoeconomic potential with rural development, energy and infrastructure projects, local production, urban economic functions, and community-centered economic democracy. The framework aligns with key principles of the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), particularly in rural empowerment, multifunctional development, local economic diversification, and community-level participation – elements highly relevant to Georgia’s EU candidate trajectory.
The paper concludes that the Community-Corporate Model has the potential to serve as a new structural development approach for Georgia, capable of addressing twenty-first-century geoeconomic challenges and fostering an inclusive, sustainable, bottom-up economic architecture. The study represents a foundational research contribution that calls for further academic, governmental, and international expert evaluation to enable institutional implementation.
The present article represents an analytical introduction to a broader conceptual project. A full-scale implementation model, including legal frameworks and detailed financial mechanisms, is developed within the main research project.

Keywords: Geoeconomics, communal development, decentralization, regional policy, economic transformation, Georgia.
JEL Codes: F15, F22, O18, Q18, R11

References:
• Mekvabishvili E. (2018). Globalizatsiis Epokis Pinansuri Krizisebi da Sakartvelos Ekonomika. [Financial Crises of the Globalization Era and the Georgian Economy, Tbilisi, “Inteleqti”.] in Georgian
• Davitashvili Z. (2003). Natsionalizmi da Globalizatsia. [Nationalism and Globalization, Tbilisi: Open Society Georgia Foundation.] in Georgian
• Kereselidze N. (2025). Sakartvelos Soplis Ganvitarebis Nacionaluri Interventsiebi Sheesabameba EU CAP Miznebs. [The National Interests of Georgian Agriculture Are Consistent with the Objectives of the EU CAP. Journal “Economics and Business” No. 2.]
• Baker D. (2025). Free Trade Is Very Deep. CEPR, US–EU Report.
• Blenkinsop P. (2025). US–EU Tariff Clash Imperils $9.5 Trillion of Business, AmCham Warns. Reuters. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/business/useutariffclashimperils95trillionbusinessamchamwarns20250317/
• Brzezinski Z. (2005). Interview in Los Angeles Times.
• Bush G. (1991). Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People. Available at: https://georgewbushwhitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/200109208.html
• Fukuyama F. (1989). The End of History? The National Interest, 16, pp. 3–18.
• Fukuyama F. (1992). The End of History and the Last Man. New York and London.
• Fukuyama F. (2002). Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution.
• Nye J. S. (2023). Is Globalization Over? Project Syndicate. Available at: https://www.projectsyndicate.org/commentary/globalizationnotoverbutchanginginshapeandemphasisbyjosephsnye202303
• Papava V. (2022). Pandexit’s Main Economic Challenges. Georgian Foundation for Strategic and International Studies.
• Toffler A. (2006). Revolutionary Wealth.