Civil service reform is arguably a cornerstone of economic, political and social restructuring of the Georgian state. On one hand, a reformed civil service should provide effective mechanisms for the performance of state institutions. On the other hand, it should ensure fair and equal treatment of citizens. Effective civil service is also crucial for meeting Georgia’s internationally committed targets, since relevant activities should be planned and implemented by the politically neutral bureaucracy. The importance of well-functioning civil service was immediately recognized by the new leadership. As a result, the President established the Civil Service Council and the Civil Service Bureau in 2004. The former is a consultative body of the President, whereas the latter is a legal entity of public law subordinate to the President and responsible for the implementation of civil service reform. Despite the overall recognition of the need for changes, the reform has not yet started. One reason for the delay could be attributed to the diffusion of formal authority over the planning and implementation among the newly-formed institutions that are in charge of reform. An additional factor could be disagreement among the key players on major principles of a new Civil Service Code and the limited involvement of the state leadership in the policy formation process. This report describes two main approaches to the civil service reform advocated by two policy networks inside the government. The first approach maintains that civil service resembles a grand corporation that is characterized by uniform grading, protection, and benefit systems. This approach will be referred to as the protection approach in this text. The second approach considers civil service as a competitive labour market, where individual agencies act as firms that compete for a quality workforce. This will be further referred to as the flexibility approach. Currently, negotiations on three main principles of the Code are well under way: (1) the extent of regulation; (2) the extent of protection; and (3) remuneration and benefit systems. The two approaches have contradictory views on each issue but both sides have expressed willingness to compromise. However, given the disposition of the players on the pitch, the extent of compromises could be decided by the ability of each side to persuade the state leadership that the principles they promote have comparative advantages.