SME Policy Index for Western Balkans and Türkiye 2026

The assessment framework of the SME Policy Index 2026: Western Balkans and Türkiye is aligned with the Small Business Act (SBA) for Europe and structured around 13 policy dimensions covering the breadth of SME policy. The methodology has been jointly developed by the OECD, the European Commission, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the European Training Foundation, ensuring a consistent and co-ordinated approach grounded in internationally recognised practices.

Building on lessons from previous assessment cycles and reflecting evolving regional and global dynamics, the methodology has been updated for this edition. These revisions expand the scope of the analysis to capture emerging policy areas and place greater emphasis on policy delivery, particularly implementation and monitoring.

The OECD has revised the methodology used to calculate scores in the SME Policy Index, guided by four key principles aimed at enhancing its effectiveness, relevance and usability.

Taken together, these guiding principles ensure that the revised SME Policy Index methodology provides a more robust and policy-relevant framework, supporting governments in assessing SME policies and fostering increased alignment with and convergence towards EU SME policy standards.

Scores assigned to economies across policy dimensions (and their constituent sub-dimensions and thematic blocks) under the SME Policy Index are derived from a multi-source assessment process combining OECD evaluation, government self-assessment and validation through stakeholder consultations to address information gaps and ensure accuracy.

The information underpinning the SME Policy Index is collected through 13 questionnaires, corresponding to each policy dimension. Most dimensions are further structured into sub-dimensions, which are divided into thematic blocks containing sets of related questions. These thematic blocks generally reflect the key stages of the policy cycle: design, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation (Figure A A.1). Each block includes two types of questions: (i) multiple-choice questions used to calculate assessment scores, and (ii) open-ended questions that capture additional descriptive evidence and contextual information.

There are several exceptions to this structure:

• Both Dimension 5b (Public procurement) and Dimension 8a (Enterprise skills) are organised solely around thematic blocks and do not include sub-dimensions.

• For certain dimensions and sub-dimensions, they are not structured around the typical three thematic blocks. These include:

  • Dimension 6 (Access to finance)

  • Dimension 7 (Standards and technical regulations)

  • Dimension 8b (Innovation policy for SMEs)

  • Sub-dimensions 2.1 (Preventive measures) and 2.3 (Promoting second chance)

  • Sub-dimension 3.3 (Public-private consultations)

  • Sub-dimensions 4.3 (Business licensing) and 4.4 (Tax compliance procedures for SMEs)

The assessment questionnaires were distributed to appointed government representatives (the “SME Policy Index co-ordinators”) in each of the seven Western Balkans and Türkiye economies,1 through which governments conducted a self-assessment of their policy frameworks. The process was broad-based, engaging more than 600 representatives from both government and non-government stakeholders across the region. In parallel, the OECD carried out an independent assessment, drawing on extensive desk research and follow-up consultations with key stakeholders to address information gaps and resolve inconsistencies, while authorities were asked to provide supporting evidence for each response to facilitate verification. The assessment further benefited from inputs provided by a team of local experts, as well as subject-matter experts from relevant OECD directorates and partner organisations, including the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the European Training Foundation.

Qualitative information collected through multiple-choice questions was converted into quantitative scores. Each question was assigned a specific point range, typically between 0.25 and 1 point.

In some cases, scoring remains binary, with points awarded based on a yes/no response. However, in this assessment cycle, greater emphasis has been placed on incorporating quality criteria into the scoring methodology. This approach ensures that scores reflect not only the existence of a policy or measure, but also its depth, effectiveness and level of development, allowing for clearer differentiation between more and less advanced policy frameworks.

For certain questions, this has meant moving beyond binary responses to assess levels of advancement based on evidence, with predefined answer categories reflecting increasing levels of policy maturity (Figure A A.2). In other cases, previously binary questions have been complemented with a quality assessment. For example, when assessing whether a policy framework is in place, a base score (50% of the total points) was awarded for its existence, while the remaining score reflected the extent to which defined quality criteria were met (e.g. a clear timeline, allocated budget, well-defined, measurable objectives). A similar approach was applied to other questions, such as those related to evaluation, as illustrated in Figure A A.3.

Once scores had been assigned to all scored questions, a simple average was used to compute scores at the thematic block level.

As noted earlier, the weighting applied to dimensions with standard thematic blocks has been adjusted in this assessment cycle. Previously, weights were distributed as 30% for policy design, 50% for implementation and 20% for monitoring and evaluation; this has now been revised to 25% for policy design, 50% for implementation, and 25% for monitoring and evaluation (Table A A.1). An exception is made for Dimension 11, where greater emphasis continues to be placed on the policy planning stage, reflecting the relatively early stage of development of this area across the region.

For policy dimensions with sub-dimensions, scores for each thematic block were then aggregated to obtain a score for the sub-dimension. Sub-dimension scores were finally aggregated using expert-determined weightings (based on the relative significance of each policy area) to reach an overall dimension score. This score ranges from 1 to 5, wherein a score of 1 represents the weakest performance, while a score of 5 reflects the most advanced level of policy development across all stages of the policy cycle as well as a high degree of alignment with OECD and EU good practices and standards (Figure A A.4).

Despite revisions to weighting of thematic blocks across dimensions to place less weight on planning and design and more on monitoring and evaluation, scores between the 2022 and 2026 edition of the SME Policy Index remain broadly comparable, as the majority of the questions across policy dimensions remain common to both assessments and thus allow for broad comparability. When changes in score are due to weighting change, specific explanations are offered in dimension chapters.

However, for certain dimensions, comparability with previously published editions is not possible. Namely:

• Dimension 6 (Access to finance): This dimension underwent significant structural and methodological changes to reflect the emergence of new policy instruments supporting access to bank finance, the diversification of financing instruments available to firms, and the increasing policy emphasis on monitoring, evaluation and effective implementation. These changes were also introduced to ensure closer alignment with the latest OECD and EU standards and good practices in assessing access to finance policies.

  As a result of these changes, the 2026 scores are not directly comparable to the published version of the SME Policy Index 2022. However, to preserve the benchmarking nature of the exercise and ensure analytical continuity, the 2022 scores for Dimension 6 and its sub-dimensions were recalculated using the 2026 assessment framework and structure. This enables an illustrative assessment of score evolution between the two cycles, subject to the limitations arising from the revised structure and methodology of the dimension.

• Dimension 11 (Digital transformation of SMEs): As indicated earlier in this annex, Dimension 11 is new to the SME Policy Index 2026 assessment cycle and therefore has no predecessor against which to benchmark progress.

Another novelty of the SME Policy Index 2026 is the introduction of a cluster-based, rather than dimension-based, narrative across both the regional report and the seven economy profiles. These clusters draw on inputs from all 13 policy dimensions (Table A A.2) and are designed to be mutually complementary. This approach enhances the readability and usability of the report, while enabling a more integrated, cross-cutting and dynamic analysis of policy issues facing SMEs.