The ASEAN SME Policy Index framework aims to provide an independent and rigorous assessment of the policy environment for SMEs and to benchmark this assessment against the goals and actions identified in the ASEAN Strategic Action Plan for SME Development (SAP SMED) 2016-2025, as well as OECD good practice. It aims to provide guidance for policy reform and development on the basis of these findings.
While other indices and benchmarking exercises assess the business environment in Southeast Asia, the SME Policy Index adds value by going beyond the statistics to examine the policy environment for SMEs across a broad range of areas. In addition:
It focuses on the ASEAN region as it embarks upon further economic integration, enabling policy makers to identify challenges that may lie ahead.
It evaluates the SME policy environment comprehensively around the objectives of the SAP SMED 2016-2025, allowing for an assessment of progress.
It takes a participatory approach to evaluation and measurement through its involvement of policy makers, the private sector and partner organisations.
It provides guidance on how to improve the SME policy framework in each country through good practice examples and policy recommendations.
It incorporates relevant data by other organisations, such as the World Bank’s Doing Business report and Enterprise Surveys, as well as additional ERIA and OECD data, such as ERIA’s foreign investment liberalisation index scores and the OECD’s trade facilitation index scores.
It uses the country context and broader factors affecting SME development to complement the analysis that emerges from the scores.
However, the SME Policy Index methodology also has limitations:
The inputs and outputs of government policy can be hard to capture, particularly in countries where SME policies are mainly implemented by local government.
A lack of SME data in many Southeast Asian countries, as well as substantially diverse SME definitions, limit the comparability of data across economies.
The indicator weights are defined based on expert opinion, and therefore can be open to challenge.
Certain indicators may have been given special prominence due to their importance to ASEAN member states and the SAP SMED 2016-2025, rather than necessarily on the basis of expert opinion.
The assessment covers a hugely diverse group of countries that differ substantially in terms of income, geography, population, resource endowment and institutional capacity. The application of a single set of indicators and weights can therefore mask certain country-specific characteristics in the scoring. Attempts were made to address this constraint, such as graduated scoring and the exclusion of certain countries from indicators that were not applicable (for more information, see Annex A).