This chapter focuses on the governance framework for promoting foreign direct investment (FDI) and the development of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Poland. It examines the institutional structures responsible for designing and implementing FDI, SME, innovation, and regional development policies. The chapter explores policy co-ordination mechanisms to ensure coherence across national, regional, and local government tiers and among key institutions. Additionally, it analyses Poland's monitoring and evaluation framework for policy implementation, highlighting areas for improvement in stakeholder engagement to enhance the effectiveness of FDI-SME linkages.
Strengthening FDI and SME Linkages in Poland
Abstract
Poland’s approach to FDI-SME policy governance is characterised by a shared responsibility model, where multiple ministries and agencies are involved in designing and implementing policies that support FDI and SMEs. This partially integrated framework is common across many EU countries. As seen in Figure 4.1. the Ministry of Development and Technology (MRiT) is responsible for investment promotion, SME support, and innovation policies, working closely with the Polish Investment and Trade Agency (PAIH). However, unlike some OECD models where both the investment promotion agency (IPA) and SME agency report to the same ministry, in Poland, the Polish Agency for Enterprise Development (PARP) operates under the Ministry of Funds and Regional Policy (MFIPR), not MRiT.
Note: The main institutions acting upon FDI and SME linkages are designated in red. All the other institutions provide a complementary contribution to FDI and SME linkages.
Source: OECD elaboration based on EC/OECD Survey of Institutions and Policies enabling FDI-SME Linkages (2024).
Alongside the MRIT, which holds a central role, other institutions contribute significantly to Poland's FDI-SME policy framework. The Ministry of Finance shapes tax policy and contributes to macroeconomic stability. While it plays a role in international financial co-operation, the co-ordination and management of EU structural funds are primarily handled by the Ministry of Development Funds and Regional Policy (MFIPR). MFIPR is also responsible for co-ordinating regional development and ensuring alignment with national strategies. The National Centre for Research and Development (NCBR), operating under the Ministry of Science and Higher Education and partially under MFIPR, fosters innovation and R&D collaboration. The Industrial Development Agency (ARP), which is supervised by the Ministry of State Assets (MAP), focuses on restructuring strategic industries and managing its own industrial parks. The Bank Gospodarstwa Krajowego (BGK), also under MAP, provides financial instruments not only for SMEs but also for large enterprises and public-private partnerships. The Polish Development Fund (PFR) Group, also supervised by MAP, plays a key role in co-ordinating strategic investment initiatives. The PFR Council, which includes representatives from BGK, ARP, PARP, PAIH, and KUKE, ensures strategic policy alignment and inter-agency co-ordination across key economic development institutions. Additionally, the institutional separation of key investment and SME financing entities across different ministries poses co-ordination challenges. While PAIH operates under the Ministry of Development and Technology (MRiT), other crucial investment-related agencies such as PFR, ARP, and BGK report to MAP, and PARP operates solely under MFIPR. This fragmentation necessitates structured inter-agency collaboration to ensure policy coherence between investment promotion, SME support, and financial instruments for business development.
Poland’s partially integrated framework allows for diverse expertise of multiple agencies and ministries, but it requires strong inter-ministerial co-ordination to ensure policy coherence across institutions. More complex governance systems, such as in Poland, may induce higher risks of information asymmetries, transaction costs and trade-offs, and require strong inter-institutional co-ordination mechanisms to overcome potential policy silos. Poland’s approach to policy co-ordination presents a mixed picture, with established mechanisms alongside less structured processes requiring improvement. A major challenge in Poland lies in the still present fragmentation across institutions responsible for FDI, SME, innovation, and regional development. For example, this is evidenced in the overlapping responsibilities between the Ministry of Finance and the MFPR, where both manage investment and trade promotion but with different focuses — national economic stability versus regional development — leading to potential policy gaps.
In Poland, collaboration across various institutions and fields of government employs a blend of formal and informal mechanisms, highlighting both strengths and areas that need enhancement. Strengthening formal inter-agency communication channels could improve policy alignment and implementation efficiency. Insights from the EC/OECD Survey on Policies enabling FDI spillovers to domestic SMEs reveal that a relatively small proportion of FDI-SME policies involve collaboration among different institutions. Only 39% of such policies involve an element of collaboration in their formulation and implementation. Ministries and agencies such as the MRIT, PARP and PAIH frequently rely on informal channels to communicate and align their efforts. Regular informal meetings and working groups bring together representatives from various departments to discuss ongoing projects and policy adjustments. These interactions facilitate quick decision making and the sharing of best practices, contributing to a dynamic and responsive policy environment. However, reliance on informal mechanisms can lead to inconsistencies and a lack of accountability.
To enhance the effectiveness of inter-institutional co-ordination and collaboration, Poland could consider formalising its informal practices by establishing structured co-ordination bodies and regular inter-agency meetings with clearly defined agendas and objectives. While requiring some investment in terms of time and organisation, this would improve policy coherence and reduce redundancies across ministries and agencies. Strengthening existing inter-ministerial committees, such as expanding the mandate of the PFR Council to oversee FDI-SME linkages, would further reinforce these efforts. Additionally, formalising collaboration between institutions like PAIH and PARP through regular meetings with clear documentation and reporting mechanisms would ensure more structured co-ordination and prevent overlapping responsibilities. The regional element of Poland’s FDI-SME institutional framework plays a crucial role in aligning national policies with local contexts, but faces challenges in co-ordination and resource disparities. Unlike more centralised models in some OECD countries, Poland's approach involves significant involvement from regional and local authorities (Figure 4.1). This approach recognises the diverse economic conditions and specific needs of different regions, allowing for more effective regional policy implementation. However, regional agencies, responsible for investment promotion and SME development, often struggle to effectively co-ordinate with national bodies, leading to inefficiencies and difficulties in adapting national policies to local needs. SEZs are a key component in the regional FDI-SME framework, yet they also suffer from fragmentation, with less developed regions generally receiving more support to stimulate growth, while more developed regions may receive less, depending on their specific needs and capacities. To address these issues, stronger co-ordination mechanisms between national and regional levels are needed, along with enhancing the capacity of local agencies, ensuring that policies are effectively tailored to regional conditions while maintaining alignment with national objectives (see Chapter 6 for more regional insights).
Poland’s approach to investment and SME policy is embedded in broader national economic strategies, such as the Strategy for Responsible Development, which outlines the country’s long-term vision for sustainable growth. However, despite these overarching strategic frameworks, there is a need for stronger alignment and coherence between national and sectoral strategies to support FDI-SME linkages more effectively. Key strategies should focus on integrating FDI-SME policies with innovation, digitalisation, and regional development goals to ensure a comprehensive approach. For example, the National Smart Specialisation Strategy offers an opportunity to align FDI-SME linkages with innovation-driven sectors. The current approach could be strengthened by developing a dedicated national investment strategy that explicitly promotes FDI-SME linkages, which would help streamline objectives and actions across ministries and agencies. Formalising these strategies with clear metrics for success would provide better direction and coherence in Poland's investment landscape.
Effective stakeholder engagement is critical for the successful implementation of FDI-SME policies in Poland. The country has made notable progress in this regard, involving businesses, investors, and SMEs in the policy design and consultation processes. Platforms like legislacja.rcl.gov.pl allow for public input on draft regulations, ensuring that diverse perspectives are considered. However, challenges remain, particularly in ensuring that stakeholder input is meaningfully integrated into policy decisions. For instance, while informal consultations with experts and businesses are common, these practices could be formalised to ensure consistency and accountability across ministries and agencies. Moreover, improving the inclusivity and frequency of consultations with a broader range of stakeholders, such as local governments and regional business associations, would enhance the relevance and impact of FDI-SME initiatives. This inclusive approach would help increase compliance, strengthen trust, and ensure that policies are more aligned with the real needs of businesses and regions. Furthermore, fostering partnerships between public institutions and the academic community would provide additional capacity for rigorous policy assessment and evidence generation. Such collaboration could include joint research initiatives, academic advisory panels, and the establishment of data-sharing agreements, ensuring that public policies are better informed and aligned with the needs of businesses and regions.
A critical gap in Poland’s FDI-SME policy framework lies in the limited use of systematic monitoring and evaluation (M&E) frameworks. While some progress has been made with tools such as regulatory impact assessments (RIA) and the SME test, these are not consistently applied across all relevant policy initiatives. For example, less than one-third of FDI-SME policies in Poland have integrated M&E frameworks, highlighting a need for more robust and systemic approaches to assessing policy outcomes. To address these gaps, it is essential to apply scientifically rigorous methods for policy evaluation, ensuring that policies are assessed using clear, evidence-based metrics. This would allow for a more accurate measurement of their impact on FDI attraction and SME development. Strengthening these frameworks could involve better access to firm-level data to enable granular monitoring of SMEs and FDI impacts, ensuring that the data informs adjustments to policy design and implementation. Strengthening M&E frameworks with clear performance indicators and regular ex post evaluations would provide critical insights into the effectiveness of FDI-SME policies, enabling evidence-based adjustments. The development of annual regulatory reports, overseen by a central regulatory review body, would ensure accountability and provide a transparent view of policy performance. These improvements in monitoring and evaluation would help ensure that Poland’s FDI-SME policies are achieving their intended impact, supporting long-term economic growth and development.
Strengthen inter-ministerial and regional co-ordination. This can be achieved by establishing structured inter-agency committees and councils with representatives from key ministries and agencies such as the Ministry of Development Funds and Regional Policy, the Ministry of Economic Development and Technology, the Polish Investment and Trade Agency (PAIH) and Polish Agency for Enterprise Development (PARP). This will improve policy coherence, align efforts, share data and reduce duplication of activities. These collaborations could be converted into formal structures with clear documentation and reporting mechanisms, to minimise inefficiencies and lack of accountability. Strengthen the role of Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) by providing tools and training to manage FDI-SME linkages and ensure vertical co-ordination between national and regional levels. This will support balanced regional development and help address disparities. To account for the independent financial goals of many regional entities, co-ordination efforts should be voluntary and incentive-driven, focusing on structured information-sharing, best practice exchange, and capacity-building rather than formal regulatory mandates.
Consider developing a comprehensive national investment strategy. Create a unified strategy that integrates domestic and foreign investment priorities with broader economic goals. This strategy should prioritise investments that contribute to Poland’s transition to a green economy, particularly in sectors such as renewable energy, high-tech manufacturing, and ICT. It should also foster stronger linkages between foreign investors, domestic enterprises, and SMEs to enhance value chain integration and regional development.
Develop a dedicated national SME strategy that includes a focus on building stronger linkages with FDI. This strategy should aim to enhance the capacity of SMEs to innovate, adopt new technologies, and engage in international markets. It should also prioritise improving SME access to finance, fostering digital transformation, and supporting skills development as well as incorporate an FDI component. Inspiration can be drawn from the Czech SME Strategy, which emphasises strengthening SME competitiveness through linkages with foreign investors, industry-specific collaboration platforms, and support for innovation and R&D.
Implement robust monitoring and evaluation (M&E) frameworks. Systematically incorporate outcome-based M&E frameworks across all FDI-SME policies. This would involve using quantifiable outcome-based indicators tailored to the Polish context, such as the impact of FDI on SME productivity and innovation. Comprehensive data tracking and regular ex post evaluations should be conducted in co-operation with all main data providers, of which Statistics Poland and National Bank of Poland (institutions responsible for official statistics and FDI, respectively) to assess the long-term impacts of these policies and adjust them accordingly.
Enhance Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIA). Improve RIA co-ordination across sectors and ministries by involving the Chancellery of the Prime Minister and the Ministry of Economic Development and Technology. Establish an oversight committee to ensure the quality of RIA reports, reduce regulatory burdens on SMEs, and align regulations with Poland’s strategic goals. A similar model has been implemented in the Slovak Republic, where the Ministry of Economy oversees RIA quality and co-ordination across ministries.
Formalise stakeholder engagement by enhancing structured consultations with businesses, academics, and public organisations. This could involve expanding the role of bodies like the Council of Social Dialogue to ensure meaningful input into policy development, particularly in key sectors like digital innovation and sustainable energy. Strengthen collaboration with the academic community to improve evidence-based policymaking and facilitate access to firm-level data for more targeted and effective interventions.
Expand the role of the Polish Development Fund (PFR) Council. Consider broadening the mandate of the PFR Council to oversee FDI-SME linkages, ensuring that national strategies align with regional development needs. This will foster a unified and efficient approach to economic growth and SME support.
Poland could establish a centralised co-ordination mechanism specifically for the management and strategic oversight of Special Economic Zones (SEZs). To ensure a seamless transition transitioning from the traditional SEZs to a unified Polish Investment Zone (PIZ) framework by 31 December 2026, and maintain effective investment promotion, Poland could establish a centralised co-ordination body. This body would oversee the integration of SEZs into the PIZ, harmonise investment policies across regions, and ensure consistent application of incentives nationwide. Drawing inspiration from Indonesia's National Council for Special Economic Zones, which co-ordinates multiple ministries to streamline SEZ policies and benefits, Poland's centralised body could similarly bring together key stakeholders from the Ministry of Development and Technology (MRiT), the Polish Investment and Trade Agency (PAIH), and regional authorities. This collaborative approach would facilitate the integration of local SMEs into national and international supply chains, promote technology transfer, and address regional economic disparities effectively.
Poland’s FDI-SME policies involve multiple ministries and agencies, requiring stronger co-ordination to avoid risks of fragmentation and policy silos. In Poland, like in most EU countries, responsibility for the design and implementation of FDI-SME policies is shared among several implementing agencies reporting to different ministries. This reflects a partially integrated framework, where multiple ministries and agencies handle various aspects of FDI and SME development (Box 4.2). However, fragmented governance structures can lead to inefficiencies, including overlapping mandates, regulatory inconsistencies, and weak inter-agency communication. The OECD has highlighted that successful co-ordination mechanisms rely on structured inter-ministerial committees, high-level advisory councils, and joint policy planning units to ensure coherence between FDI attraction and SME development policies (OECD, 2023[1]).
As shown in Figure 4.2, the Ministry of Development and Technology (MRIT) plays a central role in investment promotion and SME policy co-ordination, working closely with the Polish Investment and Trade Agency (PAIH) to attract and facilitate foreign direct investment. However, unlike some OECD models where both the Investment Promotion Agency (IPA) and SME agency report to the same ministry, in Poland, the Polish Agency for Enterprise Development (PARP) operates under the Ministry of Development Funds and Regional Policy (MFIPR), not MRIT. PARP however maintains collaboration with PAIH, built on historical ties. PARP focuses on SME development and business support programmes, while financial instruments for business growth are administered separately through institutions like the Bank Gospodarstwa Krajowego (BGK), which falls under the Ministry of State Assets (MAP). The Ministry of Finance shapes tax policy and contributes to macroeconomic stability. Additionally, the Ministry of Development Funds and Regional Policy (MFIPR) is responsible for regional development policies, efficiently allocating EU funds and supporting subnational business assistance programmes. Innovation and research initiatives are driven by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education, in collaboration with the National Centre for Research and Development (NCBR), which supports R&D projects and industry-academia partnerships. This multi-layered governance framework reflects Poland’s approach to co-ordinating FDI attraction, SME growth, and regional development (Box 4.2).
Ministries such as MRIT, Ministry of State Assets, MFIPR, and the Ministry of Finance collaborate on policy design and implementation, ensuring alignment of FDI and SME support initiatives. Unlike countries with a single agency overseeing the FDI-SME ecosystem, Poland’s framework involves multiple ministries and agencies, each with distinct roles. As detailed in Box 4.2, Poland’s governance model contrasts with other EU Member States that either rely on highly integrated frameworks or more fragmented ones. For example, countries like Slovenia and Estonia have fully integrated systems where a single government agency manages the entire FDI-SME ecosystem, limiting the need for extensive inter-institutional co-ordination. In contrast, countries like Portugal operate with more fragmented systems, where responsibility is distributed across specialised agencies reporting to different ministries. Poland, standing somewhere between these two models, benefits from the expertise of multiple agencies but also faces the challenge of ensuring policy coherence across ministries. This complexity can increase risks of inefficiencies, such as information asymmetries or overlapping responsibilities, as highlighted in Box 4.2. Stronger inter-ministerial co-ordination is therefore essential to mitigate these risks and improve the overall effectiveness of FDI-SME policies.
Poland can draw lessons from various EU countries that have successfully implemented strong co-ordination mechanisms between public actors to enhance economic policy coherence and the effectiveness of FDI-SME linkages. In Portugal, inter-ministerial collaboration is facilitated through high-level strategic councils such as the National Council on Entrepreneurship and Innovation (CNEI) and the Strategic Council for the Internationalisation of the Economy (CEIE), which bring together key government ministries, business representatives, and academia to align policy objectives. Portugal has also established inter-ministerial co-ordination commissions to ensure the effective implementation of national economic strategies. Czechia has similarly strengthened inter-agency co-ordination through its Management and Coordination Committee, responsible for monitoring and adjusting the country’s SME Support Strategy 2021-2027, with structured inter-ministerial consultations informing policy adjustments. Slovak Republic employs a Prime Minister-led advisory model, where economic policy decisions are guided by cross-ministerial councils and supported by executive secretariats that ensure follow-up on commitments. Latvia’s Cross-Sectoral Coordination Centre, reporting directly to the Prime Minister, acts as a dedicated oversight body to align long-term economic and investment strategies across ministries. To enhance co-ordination in its FDI-SME policy framework, Poland could establish a dedicated inter-ministerial council, integrating key ministries responsible for investment, SME development, regional policy, and innovation. Strengthening these mechanisms would help address fragmentation, improve policy coherence, and enhance the effectiveness of FDI-SME linkages in Poland (OECD, 2024[2]) (OECD, 2022[3]).
Unlike more centralised models in some OECD countries, Poland's approach involves significant involvement from regional and local levels (Table 4.1). This approach recognises the diverse economic conditions and specific needs of different regions, allowing for more effective policy implementation. This emphasises the need for tailored regional strategies to align national objectives with regional strengths. For example, decentralised SME programmes can have a significant long-term impact on SME development, provided strong co-ordination mechanisms are in place. Countries that have successfully implemented decentralised SME support structures often have clear commitments at the highest political levels, supported by coherent strategic frameworks and institutional arrangements that facilitate policy coherence and collaboration across different government tiers. However, this decentralised approach can lead to disparities in resource allocation and effectiveness, underscoring the need for stronger co-ordination and support mechanisms to ensure cohesive and inclusive economic development across all regions.
Note: The main institutions acting upon FDI and SME linkages are designated in red. All the other institutions provide a complementary contribution to FDI and SME linkages.
Source: OECD elaboration based on EC/OECD Survey of Institutions and Policies enabling FDI-SME Linkages (2024).
Source: Author’s elaboration based on EC/OECD Survey of Institutions and Policies enabling FDI-SME Linkages (2024).
Governance frameworks supporting FDI and SME linkages within the European Union vary, ranging from highly integrated settings where FDI-SME policies are the responsibility of a single ministry or implementing agency, to fragmented institutional set ups, where the responsibility is shared among a larger number of institutions. More complex governance systems may induce higher risks of information asymmetries, transaction costs and trade-offs, and require stronger inter-institutional co-ordination mechanisms to overcome potential policy silos (OECD, 2023[1]).
In Portugal, for example, several highly specialised implementing agencies operate across the four policy areas of investment, SME and entrepreneurship, regional development and innovation, reporting to different line ministries (Figure 4.3) (OECD, 2022[3]). The primary responsibility for SME and business innovation policy lies with the Ministry of Economy and Digital Transition and its implementing agencies (the SME Competitiveness Agency (IAPMEI) and the National Innovation Agency (ANI)). The Ministry of Foreign Affairs also implements national investment promotion and trade policies and supervises the work of the national IPA (AICEP Portugal Global). Important prerogatives are also in the hands of the Ministry of Planning and the Ministry of Territorial Cohesion, which are responsible respectively for the management of the EU Structural and Investment Funds and the design and implementation of economic growth policies in regions (OECD, 2023[1]).
In contrast, other EU member States with an integrated institutional framework (e.g. Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia) target the entire FDI-SME ecosystem through a single government agency reporting to one Ministry (OECD, 2023[1]). For instance, Slovenia’s Ministry of Economic Development and Technology is responsible for all policy areas related to FDI and SME linkages. A single agency, SPIRIT Slovenia, is in charge of FDI, SMEs, innovation, and tourism promotion, while regional development policy is co-ordinated through the Ministry’s Regional Development Directorate (OECD, 2022[4]). By design, the need for inter-institutional collaboration in such integrated governance frameworks is limited, facilitating co-ordination across policy domains.
Overall, the majority of EU member States – including Poland – stands in between and has partially integrated governance framework (OECD, 2023[1]). In this group of countries, a common trend is for the IPA and the SME and entrepreneurship agency to report to the same ministry, which could facilitate inter-institutional planning and decision making across the investment and SME policy agendas. Responsibilities for innovation promotion, on the other hand, are often split between the ministries responsible for economic policy, science, and education. Although investment promotion, SME and innovation policies can be more or less integrated into the same ministry, regional development policy usually stands apart, and is entrusted to a dedicated ministry. However, there are exceptions. For example, in Slovenia, as highlighted above, responsibility for regional policy sits within the Ministry of Economy (OECD, 2023[1]).
4.2.1. The Polish governance structure involves multiple ministries and agencies responsible for FDI and SME policies
The primary responsibility for investment, SME, and entrepreneurship policy in Poland lies with the MRIT. The Ministry’s portfolio encompasses key areas such as investment promotion, SME support, industrial policy, and innovation (in addition to other relatively unrelated areas of responsibilities such as urban planning, construction, real estate, or space policy). The approach to FDI-SME linkages in Poland, particularly regarding SME policy, is managed by multiple departments within MRIT, reflecting a holistic policy perspective that integrates SME development as a fundamental, cross-sectional element of broader economic strategies. Within MRIT, departments such as the Department of Investment Development, the Department of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises, and the Department of Innovation and Industrial Policy play a considerable role in strengthening FDI-SME linkages. For instance, the Department of Investment Development focuses on policies related to investment promotion and facilitation at national and subnational levels, including SEZs and industrial parks, thereby enhancing the attractiveness of Poland as an investment destination. The Department of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises designs and targets programmes aimed at strengthening the productive, innovative, and digital capacities of Polish SMEs, facilitating their integration into global value chains. This organisational structure ensures that SME aspects are considered alongside industrial and technological advancement, fostering a dynamic ecosystem conducive to both foreign investment and SME growth.
The MRIT has a structured collaboration with PAIH and PARP to streamline investment promotion and SME support; although informal collaboration exists, they primarily work together through formal processes as well (Table 4.1). This collaboration helps in leveraging the strengths of each institution to create a more cohesive support system for businesses. Public-private partnerships are fostered through initiatives led by the National Centre for Research and Development (NCBR), facilitating R&D and innovation. Additionally, regional development agencies and Special Economic Zones (SEZs) collaborate with local governments and national agencies to tailor strategies to regional needs, ensuring cohesive and inclusive economic development.
The Department of Innovation and Industrial Policy oversees the national smart specialisation strategy and promotes R&D-intensive investments. This department’s initiatives include fostering innovation-based partnerships between foreign investors and local SMEs, as well as other R&D institutions such as universities and research centres. These efforts are critical for enhancing Poland’s industrial competitiveness and technological capabilities.
The MRIT is directly responsible for the implementation of 11% of the Polish policy initiatives mapped under the 2024 edition of the EC/OECD Survey of Institutions and Policies enabling FDI-SME Linkages (Figure 4.4). A further 53% of the policy initiatives mapped is delivered by three implementing agencies (PARP, PAIH, BGK), which play a particularly prominent role in supporting the Polish FDI‑SME ecosystem.
PAIH is the primary institution responsible for attracting and facilitating FDI in Poland. PAIH offers a range of services to foreign investors, including assistance with market entry, site selection, and navigating regulatory requirements. The agency also promotes Poland as an attractive investment destination through international marketing campaigns and participation in global trade fairs. PAIH plays a pivotal role in promoting and facilitating investments within SEZs, which offer various incentives such as tax breaks and grants to attract high-value investments. In addition to its core investment promotion activities, PAIH supports the internationalisation of Polish companies by helping them enter and expand in foreign markets through a network of foreign trade offices. This includes providing market intelligence, facilitating B2B matchmaking, and organising trade missions.
PARP supports the growth and competitiveness of SMEs through a variety of programmes and initiatives. PARP administers EU structural funds and national programmes aimed at enhancing the productive, innovative, and digital capacities of Polish SMEs. Key programmes include the 'Financial Shield' to provide financial support during economic crises, innovation vouchers, and grants for R&D projects. PARP facilitates the integration of SMEs into global value chains through trade missions, international fairs, and market research, helping businesses access foreign markets. PARP collaborates with the MRiT in recommending international fairs, while the final selection and approval process is carried out by the Ministry of Funds and Regional Policy (MFIPR). The agency supports the establishment of strategic partnerships by connecting SMEs with international business networks and fostering collaborations with foreign enterprises and institutions. PARP also collaborates closely with academic institutions, research centres, and industry clusters to foster knowledge-intensive partnerships that drive innovation and technological advancement
Bank Gospodarstwa Krajowego (BGK) is a key institution in Poland, playing a significant role in financing and supporting the country’s economic development. BGK administers various financial instruments and programmes designed to foster investment, innovation, and the growth of SMEs. The bank's portfolio includes administering EU structural funds, providing loans and guarantees, and supporting public-private partnerships. BGK is instrumental in implementing the government’s economic policy through initiatives that address market gaps and facilitate access to financing for projects that are strategically important for Poland’s economy. Additionally, BGK supports infrastructure development, export promotion, and regional development, thereby enhancing Poland's competitiveness and fostering sustainable economic growth. The bank collaborates with other key institutions such as PARP and PAIH to ensure a co-ordinated approach to economic development and investment promotion.
KUKE, also known as the Polish Export Credit Insurance Corporation, plays a vital role in supporting Poland's international trade by offering export credit insurance and financial services. By providing a secure environment for exports, KUKE makes Poland an attractive destination for foreign investors, who view the country as a reliable partner with robust export capabilities. Additionally, KUKE's tailored solutions for SMEs help these enterprises mitigate risks and secure financing, making them more viable and competitive in international markets. This support not only enhances the growth and internationalisation of Polish SMEs but also strengthens the overall economic stability and attractiveness of Poland for FDI.
% of mapped FDI-SME policy by implementing institutions, 2024
Note: % are calculated over a total of 96 policies mapped.
Source: Author’s elaboration based on EC/OECD Survey of Institutions and Policies enabling FDI-SME Linkages (2024).
The Ministry of Finance in Poland has a crucial role in shaping the fiscal environment that underpins the country's economic policy, including the promotion of FDI and the support of SMEs. The Ministry’s responsibilities extend to the formulation and implementation of tax policies, the management of public finances, and the regulation of financial markets. By designing competitive tax incentives and ensuring a stable macroeconomic environment, the Ministry of Finance helps create favourable conditions for both domestic and foreign investors. Additionally, the Ministry oversees the allocation and effective use of EU structural funds, working closely with other ministries and agencies to ensure that these resources are used to enhance the productivity and competitiveness of Polish SMEs. Collaboration with institutions like BGK, PARP, and PAIH is essential for aligning fiscal policies with broader economic strategies, facilitating investment, and fostering an environment conducive to business growth and innovation.
The Polish Development Fund Group (PFR) is a state-owned financial group that offers instruments supporting the development of companies, local governments, and individuals. PFR’s range of financial products, including loans, guarantees, and equity investments, aims to foster the growth and competitiveness of Polish SMEs. Established to consolidate various development-oriented activities, PFR operates under the supervision of the Ministry of State Assests (MAP) and collaborates closely with other key agencies such as PARP and BGK to implement national and EU-funded programmes effectively.
The PFR Council is a central body within the Polish Development Fund Group, established under the Act on the Development Institutions System, which provides a legal foundation for joint activities of the group. The group comprises the PFR, BGK, ARP, KUKE, PARP, PAIH and their subsidiaries. The PFR co-ordinates the activities of these institutions, with the President of PFR serving as the chairman of the Council, which includes the presidents of all listed entities. The Council's main tasks involve arranging and adopting the group's strategy, monitoring its implementation, accepting reports on the strategy's execution, and co-ordinating the tasks of development institutions. Meetings are held at least once a month to ensure consistent communication and strategic alignment. The Council's activities begin with diagnosing social and economic conditions, followed by establishing the scope and priorities for action, and finally adopting a common strategy aligned with the government's economic policy.
The Industrial Development Agency (ARP) plays a key role in the restructuring and modernisation of the Polish economy, providing financial and advisory support to companies undergoing restructuring, as well as those operating in strategic industries. While ARP does not manage SEZs, it operates industrial parks and investment zones, including EURO-PARK MIELEC, EURO-PARK WISŁOSAN, and EURO-PARK KOBIERZYCE, which offer investment-ready infrastructure to attract businesses. Additionally, ARP holds a majority stake in the Starachowice SEZ, but its primary focus remains on industrial development, infrastructure projects, and supporting companies in high-potential sectors. ARP’s activities aim to enhance industrial competitiveness, foster innovation, and create jobs, contributing to FDI-SME linkages through its industrial parks and investment initiatives.
The National Centre for Research and Development (NCBR) is a key institution in Poland’s innovation ecosystem. It operates under the Ministry of Science and Higher Education and partially under the Ministry of Development Funds and Regional Policy (MFIPR). NCBR is primarily responsible for implementing national and international R&D programmes, fostering collaboration between academia and industry, and supporting innovative projects. The centre plays a crucial role in integrating SMEs into the global innovation ecosystem and enhancing their competitiveness.
The Ministry of Development Funds and Regional Policy (MFIPR) co-ordinates the design and implementation of regional development policies in Poland, managing the allocation of EU structural funds and overseeing programmes aimed at reducing regional disparities and promoting sustainable development. The Ministry provides methodological guidance and support to regional and local governments, ensuring that regional development strategies align with national economic goals. MFIPR's Regional Development Strategy sets the main objectives for regional development and identifies specific interventions to enhance regional competitiveness and cohesion. Additionally, MFIPR plays a vital role in the preparation of the Partnership Agreement with the European Commission, outlining Poland’s cohesion policy investment strategy. The Ministry's portfolio includes regional development policy, innovation, and the management of EU structural funds, with a comprehensive policy viewpoint that integrates SME aspects as cross-sectional elements of broader regional and national economic aims. Departments such as the Department of Innovation and Development Support Programmes and the Department of Regional Programmes focus on fostering innovation and enhancing the competitiveness of SMEs through targeted support and collaboration with other ministries and regional agencies. MFIPR oversees substantial portions of Poland’s EU-funded programmes, including key operational programmes like the European Funds for Smart Economy, ensuring these funds are effectively utilised to support regional development, SME growth, and R&D activities.
The MFIPR’s collaborative efforts with other key institutions, such as PARP and the NCBR further exemplify the integrated approach. PARP administers various EU structural funds under MFIPR’s guidance, supporting the growth and upgrading of Polish SMEs through programmes like the Operational Programme Intelligent Development. NCBR focuses on fostering innovation by facilitating partnerships between academia and industry, thereby contributing to the broader economic objectives set by MFIPR. While the various departments within MFIPR engaged in regional development and SME support often collaborate, this co-operation typically relies on both formal and informal channels, highlighting a potential area for more structured and formalised mechanisms. This integrated approach ensures that regional development policies are aligned with national economic strategies, fostering a cohesive environment for sustainable growth and development across Poland. Chapter 6 discusses regional FDI disparities and the strategic context for FDI in supporting regional development, including a review of the institutional framework related to investment and regional growth. Box 4.3 highlights the key challenges in implementing Polish national policies at the regional and local levels, along with the main takeaways and recommendations from Chapter 6 regarding multilevel governance.
Challenges in co-ordination and resource disparities
Regional agencies in Poland, responsible for investment promotion and SME development, frequently face significant challenges in co-ordinating with national bodies. This misalignment hampers the efficient implementation and local adaptation of national policies. A key issue is the need for improved co-ordination between national and regional levels, ensuring that policies are not only implemented but also effectively tailored to local contexts. Resource disparities are a major hurdle in this co-ordination effort. Regional and municipal governments often lack the financial, human, and technical resources necessary to implement national policies effectively. This strain is particularly evident in managing FDI-SME linkages, where additional support is crucial to achieving objectives.
The uneven distribution of resources across regions exacerbates this issue, with more developed areas better positioned to implement policies and attract FDI, while less developed regions struggle. The uneven distribution of FDI across Polish regions not only limits the economic potential of less-developed areas but also reduces the overall efficiency of investment spillovers. Regions with stronger absorptive capacity—measured through infrastructure quality, workforce skills, and local business ecosystems—tend to capture greater benefits from foreign investment. In Poland, regions such as Dolnośląskie and Mazowieckie have well-established industrial clusters and innovation hubs, facilitating knowledge transfers and linkages between foreign firms and local SMEs. In contrast, regions like Podlaskie and Świętokrzyskie face significant barriers, including lower broadband penetration (Podlaskie: 55% vs. Mazowieckie: 85%), limited access to major transport hubs, and a lower share of university graduates in STEM fields. These constraints reduce their ability to attract and retain high-value FDI.
To address these challenges, it is essential to enhance the capacity of local agencies and authorities. This involves providing additional training, resources, and technical support, enabling local agencies to meet regional needs while staying aligned with national strategies. Strengthening the capacity of municipal governments, particularly in less developed regions, is vital for fostering balanced economic growth across Poland.
Co-ordination among levels of governance
A critical issue in Poland's regional governance is the lack of co-ordination among regions in interpreting and implementing national legislation. This fragmentation leads to inefficiencies, particularly in Special Economic Zones (SEZs) and other regional bodies, where the absence of a formal co-ordination structure hinders policy execution. Improved collaboration among regions is urgently needed, especially in developing intelligent specialisations, as many regional authorities struggle to engage effectively with SMEs.
To overcome these challenges, formalising co-ordination mechanisms across different levels of governance is essential. This could include establishing inter-agency committees, regular meetings, and formal documentation processes. Such structures would ensure consistent and effective policy implementation across all regions, reducing current inefficiencies.
The importance of strengthening horizontal and vertical co-ordination
Strengthening both horizontal (across ministries and agencies) and vertical (between national and regional/local governments) co-ordination is crucial. Improved alignment between regional development strategies and national priorities would lead to more coherent and integrated policy implementation. Poland's multilevel governance system currently suffers from fragmentation, resulting in overlapping responsibilities, inefficient resource allocation, and inconsistencies in policy execution. Addressing these issues requires a structured approach to align national and regional strategies effectively, ensuring that FDI-SME policies are implemented efficiently across all regions.
Poland has taken steps towards improving its institutional environment and policy co-ordination. The “Strategy for Responsible Development for the period up to 2020 with a perspective up to 2030” (SRD) is a testament to this commitment. The SRD identifies a variety of institutional challenges that need to be addressed, which include weak social capital in some voivodeships that inhibits the collective action needed for locally based development activity. The SRD also points out the need to reduce the rigid control exercised by the national level over the actions of subsidiary governments. This control often prevents innovative activities and leads to an excessive reliance on EU funds and EU programmes to define public policies. To address these issues, the SRD proposes a commitment to decentralisation and the reinforcement of co-ordination mechanisms between different levels of government. Several efforts have been made to support this strategy. These include the introduction of territorial contracts, the establishment of Regional Social Dialogue Councils, and the creation of a Joint Committee of National Government and Local Self-Government. These initiatives aim to foster a more collaborative and co-ordinated approach to policymaking, by enhancing dialogue and co-operation across various levels of government and stakeholders. This collaborative approach drives more targeted and efficient support for FDI-SME ecosystems (OECD, 2021[5]).
1. A voivodeship is the highest-level administrative division of Poland, corresponding to a province in many other countries.
The absence of a formal co-ordination mechanism between different SEZs and managing bodies in Poland has led to inefficiencies and a fragmented investment landscape
The SEZ system in Poland underwent a significant transformation with the enactment of the Act on Supporting New Investments in May 2018. This reform established the Polish Investment Zone (PIZ), extending investment incentives beyond traditional SEZ boundaries to provide a more cohesive and flexible framework for supporting new investments across the entire country. Prior to this reform, SEZs operated under a geographically restricted model, offering tax exemptions and support only within specific designated areas. The 2018 Act modernised this system by allowing investment incentives to be accessed nationwide, ensuring that support mechanisms are more evenly distributed across regions and adapting to Poland’s evolving economic landscape. However, FDI trends suggests that despite the expanded incentives under the PIZ, investment remains heavily concentrated in a few regions. For example, Dolnośląskie and the Warsaw Metropolitan Area accounted for nearly 40% of total FDI between 2010 and 2024, while regions like Podkarpackie and Świętokrzyskie received less than USD 5 billion combined. Addressing these disparities requires more targeted incentives for underdeveloped regions, in line with the objectives of regional development policies.
The MRIT is the central institution responsible for managing and overseeing SEZs within the broader PIZ framework. PAIH is tasked with investment promotion and supporting SEZ-related initiatives. Although ARP does not manage SEZs, it operates its own industrial parks, including EURO-PARK MIELEC, EURO-PARK WISŁOSAN, and EURO-PARK KOBIERZYCE. These parks function as separate investment zones focused on industrial development and infrastructure provision, but they are not formally part of the SEZ system. Additionally, ARP is a majority shareholder in the Starachowice Special Economic Zone, but its primary role is to support strategic industries and foster regional development through targeted investment in industrial parks.
SEZs are managed by designated regional entities under the supervision of MRIT, and they often span multiple regions with distinct economic profiles and investment priorities. The level of support provided to investors varies based on the region's development status, with higher incentives for investments in less developed areas and more competitive conditions in economically advanced regions like Warsaw. Although the 2018 reform broadened access to investment incentives through the PIZ framework, it also introduced challenges related to co-ordination and communication between local and national authorities. The removal of some regional-level co-ordination structures has created difficulties in aligning local SEZ management with national investment strategies. The lack of a formal co-ordination mechanism between national and regional investment agencies has led to inefficiencies in aligning FDI attraction strategies with regional needs. Subnational investment promotion agencies (IPAs) report to regional authorities, while PAIH does not have a formal mandate to co-ordinate investment attraction across levels of government (see Chapter 6). Establishing a structured national-regional co-ordination framework could help ensure that investment incentives are aligned with local economic priorities, particularly in regions lagging in FDI absorption.
The transition to the Polish Investment Zone (PIZ) by 2026 presents an opportunity to address these challenges by simplifying the investment landscape and ensuring greater consistency in incentive application. However, critics argue that the current system remains complex, and suggest that integrating investment incentives directly into the tax code—similar to models in Estonia—could further streamline processes and enhance Poland’s competitiveness. One of the key challenges in the transition to the Polish Investment Zone (PIZ) is ensuring that investment incentives are effectively targeted to address regional disparities. Chapter 6 highlights that FDI in Poland is highly concentrated, with Dolnośląskie receiving 27 times more investment than Podkarpackie in 2023. To mitigate this imbalance, a place-based policy approach could be introduced, where regions with lower FDI inflows receive more tailored incentives. This could be aimed particularly to underdeveloped regions, following the example of Ireland’s Knowledge Development Box or Singapore’s PACT programme, which have successfully linked FDI with SME development.
The absence of a formal co-ordination mechanism among SEZs has led to fragmentation and inconsistencies in policy implementation. Establishing a structured platform for inter-agency co-operation—bringing together PAIH, MRIT, and regional SEZ management entities—would improve information flow, policy execution, and investor confidence in the Polish investment climate. This platform could ensure that the PIZ framework remains responsive to regional needs while aligning with national strategic objectives, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of Poland’s investment policies. Indonesia’s National SEZ Council offers a valuable example for Poland in establishing a centralised co-ordination mechanism for the strategic management of SEZs. The Indonesian Council, composed of seventeen ministries, plays a pivotal role in harmonising SEZ policies across regions, ensuring the consistent application of fiscal benefits, favourable taxation policies, and streamlined customs procedures. This co-ordinated approach allows Indonesia to adapt incentives to regional needs while also promoting the integration of local SMEs into SEZ supply chains, thereby maximising opportunities for technology transfer and regional economic spillovers. Additionally, Indonesia’s SEZ Council embeds robust monitoring and evaluation frameworks, which ensure data-driven decision making to continuously refine SEZ policies and address regional disparities. Poland could adopt a similar structure to enhance the strategic oversight of its SEZs, facilitating better co-ordination among key stakeholders and driving balanced regional development.
Effective public intervention in support of FDI-SME ecosystems requires the alignment of objectives and priorities across different policy areas. This often calls for co-ordination among a number of government institutions dealing with FDI promotion, SME development, innovation, and regional development. Institutional co-ordination can be achieved through different instruments and present multiple challenges, which are presented in more details in Box 4.4.
Instruments of co-ordination can be based on regulation, incentives, norms, and information sharing. They can be top-down and rely upon the authority of a lead actor or bottom-up and emergent (Peters, 2018[6]). They include (OECD, 2012[7]):
National strategies and action plans typically involve wide consultation and deliberation, provide diagnostic overviews of what the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of an SME, innovation, and local ecosystem could be, and set a shared vision of the goals pursued.
Closely related, policy evaluations and reviews are a source of strategic intelligence, and a means for promoting greater co-ordination.
Dedicated agencies or ministries assume the leadership of the national policy agenda in some policy domains (e.g. FDI/SME/innovation/regional) and often have responsibility of co-ordination. At the same time, inter-agency joint programming can facilitate co-ordination and other aspects of governance as agencies share agenda and action.
The centre of government (CoG), e.g. the President's or Prime Minister's Office, can bridge interests and bureaucratic boundaries. High-level policy councils can also deal with aspects of policy co-ordination although they often have variable roles and composition across countries.
Finally, informal channels of communication between officials or job circulation (of civil servants, but also experts and stakeholders) can play a role and suggest a relatively well-developed culture of inter-agency trust and communication.
Although co-ordination is a fundamental and longstanding problem for public administration and policy, there is still no standardised method for approaching related issues, and much of the success or failure of attempts to co-ordinate appears to depend upon context (Peters, 2018[6]). Co-ordination approaches and instruments need to be matched to circumstances, so does the need to co-ordinate across countries and policy areas. Some policy domains may work well with minimal attempts to co-ordinate with others, but others may require substantial policy integration and co-ordination. Likewise, some political systems may emphasise co-ordination and governance more strongly than others (Hayward and Wright, 2002[8]).
4.3.1. Poland's approach to policy co-ordination presents a mixed picture, with established mechanisms alongside less structured processes
The involvement of multiple ministries and agencies such as the Ministry of Development and Technology, Ministry of State Assets, Ministry of Development Funds and Regional Policy, and the Ministry of Science and Higher Education creates a complex landscape that can lead to fragmented efforts, overlapping responsibilities and duplication of support efforts. For example, the Ministry of Finance, which manages investment and trade promotion with PAIH, KUKE and BGK, and the Ministry of Development Funds and Regional Policy, which oversees regional development have overlapping responsibilities, highlighting the need for enhanced co-ordination mechanisms to bridge potential policy gaps and ensure effective collaboration across diverse domains.
Poland’s performance in inter-institutional co-ordination is below the standard of the leading OECD economies. The country ranks 32nd out of 41 economies in the inter‑ministerial co-ordination sub-indicator in the Sustainable Governance Indicators (SGI) 2022. The Chancellery of the Prime Minister remains formally responsible for preparing policy proposals, with the Legislative Process Co-ordination Department and the Government Work Programming Department playing pivotal roles. Since 2015, there has been a shift towards more informal co-ordination mechanisms. A considerable number of legislative proposals are now submitted by individual members of parliament, which has expedited the legislative process. Conflicts among ministries are typically resolved through informal channels involving senior leadership, rather than through cabinet committees. Senior ministry officials are instrumental in preparing meetings of the Council of Ministers, reflecting the significant role of both formal and informal co-ordination mechanisms in the current governance structure. (Matthes, Markowski and Bönker, 2022[9]).
In Poland, the co-ordination of policies across various institutions and fields of government employs a blend of formal and informal mechanisms, highlighting both strengths and areas needing enhancement. Strengthening formal inter-agency communication channels could improve policy alignment and implementation efficiency. While departments within MRIT engaged in FDI-SME policies often collaborate, this co-operation typically relies on both formal and informal channels. For example, collaboration that currently exists between the MRIT and PARP facilitates the co-ordinated implementation of programmes like the Operational Programme Intelligent Development. Joint programming efforts ensure optimal resource utilisation and minimise overlapping responsibilities. The complexity of Poland's governance framework sometimes results in overlaps and inefficiencies. A major challenge lies in the high level of fragmentation across institutions responsible for FDI, SME, innovation, and regional development. Each institution, while contributing valuable expertise and resources, operates within its own mandate and priorities. This fragmentation can lead to a siloed approach, where policies and initiatives are developed and implemented in isolation, thereby reducing their overall effectiveness. Addressing this issue requires a concerted effort to integrate these fragmented activities through stronger institutional frameworks and more robust co-ordination mechanisms.
4.3.2. The complex Polish governance framework necessitates more formalised co-ordination systems to harmonise the efforts of different entities involved in FDI and SME policies
MFIPR manages the allocation of EU structural funds, ensuring that regional development strategies align with national economic goals. This co-ordination is crucial for reducing regional disparities and promoting cohesive development. However, the alignment between national and regional policies is often challenged by varying regional capacities and priorities. Ensuring consistent and effective implementation across diverse regions requires not only methodological guidance but also capacity-building initiatives to strengthen local governance structures. PAIH collaborates with MRIT and the Ministry of Finance to attract and facilitate FDI. These efforts include co-ordinated marketing campaigns and streamlined investment facilitation processes, particularly in managing SEZs. Despite these efforts, the lack of a formal co-ordination framework can lead to inconsistent support for investors and missed opportunities for leveraging synergies between public and private sector initiatives.
NCBR is central to Poland’s innovation policy, promoting collaboration between academia and industry. Programmes such as the Fast Track initiative require co-ordinated efforts from various ministries and agencies to support R&D and innovation among SMEs. The challenge here lies in ensuring that these collaborative efforts are sustained and that there is a continuous exchange of information and resources between stakeholders. This necessitates the establishment of formal communication channels and regular inter-agency meetings to review progress and address emerging challenges.
Poland could benefit from establishing a network of high-level government bodies to ensure cohesive policy execution across ministries and agencies involved in FDI-SME support. This would involve creating inter-ministerial committees or councils that include representatives from all relevant ministries, agencies, and key stakeholders. These bodies would be tasked with overseeing the development and implementation of integrated policies, ensuring that all efforts are aligned with the national development strategy. The establishment of such high-level bodies can help bridge the gap between different policy areas and foster a more holistic approach to economic development. These bodies can also play a crucial role in resolving conflicts of interest, co-ordinating resource allocation, and monitoring the impact of policies. These bodies would also be responsible for screening proposed policies and initiatives to ensure they meet the necessary standards and align with the national development strategy. This screening process would help mitigate risks, identify potential conflicts, and ensure that all efforts contribute effectively to the country’s economic goals.
High-level strategic co-ordination can enhance the accountability and transparency of policy implementation. With a dedicated body overseeing co-ordination efforts, tracking progress becomes easier, bottlenecks are more readily identified, decision making is streamlined, duplication of efforts is avoided, and corrective measures can be implemented in a timely manner. This can significantly improve the efficiency and effectiveness of policy interventions, ensuring that they deliver the intended outcomes. For instance, by expanding the mandate of an existing council or creating a high-level strategic council for FDI-SME policy could provide a platform for regular dialogue between policymakers, industry representatives, and regional authorities, facilitating the exchange of best practices and the development of innovative solutions. Another critical aspect of high-level strategic co-ordination is the integration of feedback mechanisms. These mechanisms can capture insights and recommendations from various stakeholders, ensuring that policies remain responsive to changing economic conditions and evolving business needs. Regular reviews and adjustments based on stakeholder feedback can help maintain the relevance and impact of policy measures, fostering a more dynamic and resilient economic environment.
Horizontal policy co-ordination in Poland already demonstrates several successful examples of collaboration across ministries and agencies, touching on areas related to FDI and SME development. These cases selected below show that effective co-ordination is possible and serve as valuable models. However, while these initiatives highlight the potential for cohesive policy implementation, there is room for further development. Building on these existing frameworks and relationships, more comprehensive and structured co-ordination mechanisms can ensure broader and more consistent alignment across all levels of government.
The Polish EU Funds Monitoring Committee is responsible for overseeing the implementation and utilisation of European Union funds allocated to Poland. These funds aim to reduce economic and social disparities across the EU member states. The committee ensures that the funds are used effectively, transparently, and in accordance with EU regulations, by monitoring progress, ensuring compliance, evaluating impact, and engaging with stakeholders. The Committee exemplifies horizontal co-operation in the Polish governance framework by facilitating inter-ministerial co-ordination and stakeholder engagement. By bringing together various government bodies, regional authorities, businesses, and civil society, the committee aligns national and regional strategies with EU priorities.
The PFR Council exemplifies horizontal and formal co-ordination within the Polish governance framework. It brings together different government entities, regional authorities, and private sector stakeholders to collaborate on strategic economic initiatives. This collaborative approach ensures cohesive and effective policy implementation, integrating diverse perspectives and expertise. The Council's regular meetings facilitate continuous communication and co-ordination, ensuring that all development institutions work towards shared objectives.
The Civic Dialogue Council of Poland fosters communication and co-operation between the Polish government and civil society, promoting participatory democracy. It serves as a platform for regular consultations, providing recommendations on policies affecting civil society, and monitoring policy implementation. Comprising representatives from NGOs, social partners, and government officials, the council ensures diverse representation and open dialogue. By advocating for civil society interests and supporting SME development, the council enhances policy coherence and inclusiveness.
The Smart Specialisation Strategy involves co-ordinated efforts between MRIT, MFIPR, and the Ministry of Science and Higher Education. Working groups comprising representatives from business, academia, and research institutions align activities under the Smart Specialisation framework. These co-ordinated efforts ensure that regional and national innovation priorities are harmonised, fostering a more integrated approach to development.
MFIPR collaborates with regional development agencies to design and implement strategies that align with the national Responsible Development Strategy. This includes managing EU structural funds to support regional economic cohesion and competitiveness. By aligning regional initiatives with national objectives, these programmes contribute to balanced regional development.
NCBR's initiatives, such as the Fast Track programme, involve co-ordinated efforts from various ministries and agencies to fund and support innovative projects, integrating SMEs into the global innovation ecosystem. These partnerships enhance the innovation capacity of Polish enterprises, fostering a competitive and technologically advanced economic environment.
A strong network of high-level government bodies can help ensure horizontal policy co-ordination across ministries and other public institutions operating in the field of FDI-SME support. In the Slovak Republic (Box 4.6), for instance, several advisory councils are in place bringing together the Prime Minister’s office, line ministries, implementing agencies, and regional and local governments to identify priority areas where cross-ministerial policy planning and decision making is necessary (OECD, 2022[4]).
The Slovak Republic has a well-developed network of high-level government bodies – advisory councils – to ensure horizontal policy co-ordination (Figure 4.5). Some of these councils are responsible for the overall co-ordination, monitoring and evaluation of national strategies while others have been given broader mandates to foster policy dialogue, convene stakeholders and issue opinions on policy and legislative initiatives.
Note: The main institutions acting upon FDI and SME linkages are designated in red. Institutions that have a complementary contribution to FDI and SME linkages are designated in yellow.
Source: OECD (2022[4]).
Council for Export and Investment Promotion
The Council for Export and Investment Promotion (CEIP) advises the Slovak government on international investment and trade and ensures co-ordination between the Prime Minister’s office, the Council of Ministers and other parts of government that focus on issues affecting the internationalisation of the Slovak economy. The Council is chaired by the Minister of Foreign and European Affairs and the Minister of Economy, and includes representatives from government agencies (i.e. SARIO, SBA), public development banks, the Slovak Chamber of Commerce and Industry, employers’ organisations, trade unions and SME associations.
National Productivity Council
The National Productivity Council (NPC) is responsible for monitoring, analysing and assessing the productivity and competitiveness of the Slovak Republic, covering issues related to innovation, FDI promotion, business environment, education and the effectiveness of the public sector. The council brings together representatives from several Ministry departments (e.g. Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Economy, Ministry of Labour) and is chaired by the Director of the Government Office (i.e. the Slovak Republic’s centre-of-government institution). Its focus is primarily on providing analytical and advisory services – such as conducting independent analyses and preparing an annual report – and less so on co-ordinating the formulation and implementation of government policies.
Council for Science, Technology and Innovation
The Council for Science, Technology and Innovation (CSTI) plays an advisory and co-ordinating role on innovation and smart specialisation policies. Chaired by the Minister of Investments, Regional Development and Informatisation, it brings together the Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sports, the Ministry of Economy, the Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs, and implementing agencies (i.e. SIEA, SRDA, RA) with representatives from the Slovak Academy of Sciences, business associations, employers’ organisations and academic institutions. Since 2017, the Council oversees the implementation of the National Strategy for Smart Specialisation through a standing committee, which co-ordinates government decisions on research and innovation alongside monitoring and evaluating policy actions that fall under the smart specialisation domains.
Council for the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
High-level policy co-ordination on regional and territorial development issues is ensured primarily through the Council for the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Alongside monitoring progress in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the Council is tasked with monitoring and evaluating the National Strategy for Regional and Territorial Development.
Council for Cohesion Policy 2021-2027
Since 2019, the Council for Cohesion Policy 2021-2027 has also been established to co-ordinate the implementation of the Partnership Agreement between the European Commission and the Slovak Republic, which sets the strategic objectives and policy priorities that will guide the allocation of the EU Structural and Investment Funds for the period 2021-2027. The Council gathers representatives from all the Slovak ministries, regional and local governments as well as the private sector. Central to the co-ordinating role of the Council is its mandate to promote multilevel governance and ensure policy coherence at the national, regional and local levels.
Lessons for Poland:
The councils meet regularly and have been generally effective in mobilising different parts of the public administration to discuss policy issues deemed as a priority for the Slovak government. The agendas, minutes, conclusions, and monitoring reports of their meetings are also made public to ensure transparency.
However, such institutional framework lacks an overarching body to co-ordinate cross-ministerial efforts horizontally across the investment, SME, innovation, and regional development policy areas. The establishment of an executive secretariat could strengthen its capacity to co-ordinate whole-of-government policy-setting exercises. Involving the centre of government (CoG) in the management of the executive secretariat could also help bridge bureaucratic boundaries across ministries and improve the enforcement of policy decisions. In Latvia, for instance, a collegial advisory authority chaired by the Prime Minister was established in 2014 to facilitate planning and evaluation of the country’s long-term development objectives, initiate structural reforms and ensure coherence of national and local government policy (OECD, 2019[10]). This was complemented by a Cross-sectoral Coordination Centre that reports directly to the Prime Minister and aims to foster collaboration and joint actions between ministries.
Membership of the councils do not foster horizontal links among implementing agencies. For example, government agencies responsible for investment promotion and SME development, namely the SBA and SARIO, are not members of the CSTI. Similarly, innovation-focused agencies such as the SIEA, SRDA and RA do not participate in the CEIP meetings. Therefore, the Polish government should consider broadening the membership of its councils to ensure that implementing agencies from across the FDI-SME diffusion policy areas are involved in strategic policy discussions at the highest level.
Alternatively, a merger of certain Councils into one Council with a broader remit (i.e. namely covering investment, exports, innovation, business environment, productivity and competitiveness issues) could be envisaged. If composed of all relevant government institutions and entrusted with sufficient financial and human resources, such a Council could facilitate inter-institutional co-ordination and strengthen synergies and momentum behind the FDI-SME diffusion policy agenda.
The competences of the councils should also be aligned with the tasks entrusted to them, preventing bottlenecks in co-ordination and weak enforcement of collective decisions. Although the CSTI has been the main government body responsible for the management of the R&D&I system and the smart specialisation strategy in particular, it does not have legislatively defined powers to enforce its decisions on individual ministries. The lack of clarity on the role and responsibilities of CSTI members has caused tension and disagreements between line ministries, leading to delays in decision-making and approval processes, and the cancelation of many innovation funding schemes.
Source: OECD (2022[4]).
4.3.3. Despite Poland's comprehensive policies, a clearer focus on FDI-SME linkages is needed to enhance effective implementation
The presence of numerous strategic documents can make policy co-ordination more complex, potentially leading to overlapping initiatives, conflicting goals, and inefficient use of resources. However, it also reflects a comprehensive approach to policymaking, with different documents addressing various aspects of the policy landscape. In the case of Poland, compared with other countries analysed, the country has the lowest share of national strategies and plans specifically related to FDI-SMEs, accounting for only 3% (Figure 4.6). While this figure may appear low, it is important to take this quantification with caution. A smaller percentage of focused and well-executed strategies, such as Poland’s 3%, can be more effective than a larger share in other countries if the strategies are well-targeted and coherent.
% of governance frameworks in total policies mapped per country, 2024
Source: Based on EC/OECD Survey of Institutions and Policies enabling FDI-SME Linkages (2024).
Although Poland has adopted some strategic documents in recent years to address FDI and SME linkages, the share of national strategies specifically focusing on this area remains limited (Table 4.2). National strategies and action plans can be important instruments for policy co-ordination as they are crosscutting in nature, but they often require a whole-of-government approach to ensure their effective implementation. While Polish strategies are intended to be implemented through a collaboration of government bodies, including the Ministry of Development and Technology (MRIT) and the Ministry of Development Funds and Regional Policy (MFIPR), both ministries face challenges in effectively co-ordinating their efforts. Despite addressing areas such as innovation and regional development, there remains a need to strengthen inter-ministerial collaboration and ensure more seamless implementation.
Source: Author’s elaboration based on EC/OECD Survey of Institutions and Policies enabling FDI-SME Linkages (2024) and national strategic documents.
Poland has adopted a comprehensive and horizontal approach to national innovation strategies
Poland's National Smart Specialisation Strategy aims to drive national innovation by focusing on key areas of strength, fostering collaboration among diverse stakeholders, and providing targeted support through EU funds. Among the most relevant strategic documents, the National Smart Specialisation Strategy, implemented by the Ministry of Development and Technology, indicates priority in providing support for the development of research, development and innovation (R+D+I) under the new financial perspective for 2014-2020 and 2021-2027. It is a guiding framework Poland, focusing on entrepreneurial discovery and smart specialisations. The Strategy is currently undergoing a change in approach. Until the end of the 2020 financial horizon, there were 13 defined smart specialisations, focusing on industries and areas where Poland already had strengths and could build an advantage through innovative advancements. Each smart specialisation has a working group, co-operating with representatives from businesses, science, R&D, and entrepreneurs, as well as clusters. The Ministry verifies what has been defined as a smart specialisation in terms of its scope as each comes with a specific description, and also determines where public investments should be provided. While being responsible of the process of selecting and managing smart specialisation, the MRIT co-operates with the MFIPR and the Ministry of Science. A list of smart specialisations is announced along with a tender for enterprises. Enterprises must prove that their project meets the criteria to be eligible for funding, which is distributed through EU funds. The National Centre for R&D and the Polish Agency for Enterprise Development (PARP) are the implementing authorities and small companies typically go to the PARP for support.
The Strategy for Responsible Development for the period up to 2020 (including the perspective up to 2030) outlines economic policy and includes co-ordination mechanisms involving various public entities. The strategy is, implemented by the Ministry of Development Funds and Regional Policy, and shapes the medium- and long-term economic policy of the Polish State and co-ordination sets out methods for co-operation with the private sector, scientific communities and civil society. The focus is on fostering an environment conducive to innovation through pro-innovative horizontal activities.
The regional development strategy in Poland has a high degree of regional autonomy, with overarching guidance and support from national ministries
Each region in Poland has its own smart specialisation policy and strategy, which is defined by the regions themselves. This regional specialisation is part of a general strategy – the National Strategy for Regional Development 2030, overseen by the Ministry of Development Funds and Regional Policy. It provides consistent and long-term support for vulnerable areas while fostering entrepreneurship and innovativeness. The MRIT, specifically the Department of Innovation and Industrial Policy, co-operates with these regions, providing support and a network for exchange. This co-operation takes place through both formal committees of the MFIPR and smart specialisation informal bodies.
Poland focuses on fostering innovation and competitiveness, with a particular emphasis on building leaders that could compete on European or world market, rather than recognising the importance of cohesion policy. While both cohesion and innovation policy are essential, they serve distinct purposes and are implemented differently. Innovation policy is primarily focused on fostering innovation within companies. Notably, innovative companies are often clustered in major cities or specific regions that offer favourable conditions for innovation However, the goal of innovation policy is not to ensure equal distribution of innovative activities across all regions (cohesion), but rather to build leaders that can compete in the European or global market. Cohesion, on the other hand, is not a part of the innovation policy in Poland. The MRIT’s Department of Innovation and Industrial Policy is not responsible for implementing the cohesion policy, which aims to reduce disparities between regions and promote balanced development. It is worth noting that some Eastern regions of Poland, particularly the Podkarpackie Voivodeship, have excelled in implementing innovative policies. For instance, the aviation sector in this region is well developed. As expected, the largest cities are the most innovative, reflecting the concentration of resources and talent in these areas.
Although Poland does not have a dedicated SME strategy, workstreams targeting SMEs are part of wider government policy frameworks
In Poland, SME policymaking is a cross-cutting issue that brings together various Ministries, implementing agencies, and other stakeholders. This is a common practice in EU and OECD countries that SME policy considerations are increasingly mainstreamed in other policy agendas and are often combined with place-based or sector-wide approaches (OECD, 2021[11]). This approach is evident in the work of the Ministry of Development and Technology's Department of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (DSME). The DSME ensures that SMEs are incorporated into broader strategic frameworks, such as the Strategy for Responsible Development and the Productivity Strategy 2030.
Productivity Strategy 2030 is managed by the Department of Innovation and Industrial Policy and aims to stimulate the growth of investments and the productivity of enterprises (Ministry of Development and Technology of Poland, 2022[12]). It supports the digital, green, and organisational transformation of Polish companies. While the strategy does not specifically target SMEs, it does have implications for them. It aims to support the foreign expansion of Polish enterprises and the use and development of advanced digital solutions by business in Poland. This strategy is regularly consulted and supported by the DSME in their work. The process of developing and consulting on these strategies is highly collaborative and involves multiple departments. Projects are often shared with other ministries for consultation, ensuring a comprehensive and inclusive approach. This process extends beyond internal consultation to include external organisations, particularly those representing entrepreneurs. Their opinions and suggestions are taken into consideration, and their inclusion in the consultation process underscores the importance placed on a wide range of inputs and perspectives.
The Ministry of Development and Technology in Poland, specifically the Department of Innovation and Industrial Policy, is recognising the need for a strategic approach to support startups aiming to develop sectoral strategies that focus on technology and innovation. A cornerstone of this effort is the introduction of a comprehensive Startup Strategy, designed to foster a conducive environment for startups, stimulate innovation, and drive technological advancement in the country. Startups require not only pre-seed funding but also financing at all stages of maturity. While the area of R&D still needs public funding, the venture capital is expected to seal the gap in the market and would operate to capitalise on the products later and develop the business side of the projects. The goal is to accumulate domestic funds and attract foreign investors into Polish startups.
Poland could benefit from a clear investment strategy to align with policy goals and improve inter-ministerial co-ordination
As Poland does not have a national investment strategy, investment policy considerations are also incorporated in broader strategic documents. Investment promotion strategic goals are currently interwoven to a certain extent within the Strategy for Responsible Development (SRD) and in the Productivity Strategy 2030. For example, in the SRD, it is mentioned that the need for a more co-ordinated approach to support development investments is paramount. The Polish Development Fund (PDF) plays a pivotal role, serving as a key instrument in the implementation of crucial government programmes. These include, but are not limited to Start in Poland, International Expansion of Polish Enterprises, Guarantees for SMEs, Capital Development, Home+ and Electromobility. The PDF Group takes on the responsibility of co-ordinating various entities such as the Industrial Development Agency, the State Development Bank of Poland (BGK), the Export Credit Insurance Corporation (KUKE), PAIH, and PARP. In parallel, an Investment Policy could be designed and implemented in co-operation with regional entities. It will encompass systems for identifying, supporting, and servicing investors, as well as for evaluating investments and promoting them (Ministry of Development and Technology of Poland, 2017[13]).
The Productivity Strategy 2030 aims to boost private investment, which is the main driver of productivity growth, and to reduce reliance on foreign investments by being not heavily dependent on the investment cycle resulting from the expenditure of EU funds. The Programme aims to enhance the innovation and competitiveness of the Polish economy by supporting new investments undertaken by both Polish and foreign companies that meet the specified criteria. It emphasises the support of innovative investments that ensure the transfer of knowledge and R&D. It also focuses on investments carried out in areas at risk of exclusion, promoting high-paid, stable jobs, and contributing to the creation of a local network of co-operators. All new investments will be thoroughly assessed in terms of their impact on the local and sectoral economic ecosystem. Existing investment policy tools primarily support the development of high-performance and innovative investments, especially in areas struggling with socio-economic difficulties. The package of activities implemented by development institutions, SEZs and the minister responsible for the economy primarily includes public aid in the form of tax exemptions or investment grants. Additionally, a catalogue of products offered to entrepreneurs on preferential terms is also available. Support for new investments is provided regardless of the origin of the capital. In accordance with the EU development policy, preferential conditions are offered to SMEs and innovative investments. This comprehensive approach ensures that Poland’s economic growth is inclusive, sustainable, and forward-looking (Ministry of Development and Technology of Poland, 2022[12]).
A well-articulated national strategy and action plan for FDIs could help guiding specific measures, ensuring they align with Poland’s policy priorities and implementation capacity. Even though beforementioned strategies include the FDI element, they do not explicitly establish it as a strategic objective for FDI promotion activities. The integration of FDI could benefit from a more explicit strategic focus. A strategic document could help tailor efforts to attract investors aligned with sustainable development goals, showcasing the country's openness to FDI. A complementary short-term Action Plan, linked to the national strategy, could provide a more focused and operational tool. This plan could outline specific actions and policy initiatives to be undertaken over a defined timeframe with dedicated financial resource allocations, promoting policy co-ordination and effective collaboration with relevant government bodies and stakeholders.
The MRIT and the MFIPR in Poland face challenges in developing and implementing national strategies. While the MRIT has experience in managing strategies, there is a recognised need to enhance and strengthen inter-ministerial collaboration and co-ordination. The MFIPR is currently working to foster dialogue with different agencies and learn from their experiences. However, it faces the challenge of co-ordinating with implementing institutions, particularly when it is difficult to find an agency with the capacity to handle all instruments. These challenges highlight the importance of effective communication, collaboration, and knowledge sharing among various agencies and ministries. Portugal's experience shows that such co-ordination can be achieved through both horizontal collaboration among ministries and agencies and vertical co-ordination between national and regional bodies (Box 4.7). Portugal provides a useful example of effective inter-ministerial collaboration through the formation of government task forces that oversee the execution of national strategies. This approach has been applied in Portugal's National Strategy for Entrepreneurship, the Digital Transition Action Plan, and the Capitalise programme. Additionally, Portugal’s 2020-2030 Recovery and Resilience Plan establishes a comprehensive framework for inter-agency co-ordination. This governance model includes an inter-ministerial commission, a national monitoring committee, and technical co-ordination by the Recover Portugal Task Force, AD&C, and the Office for Economic Policy and International Affairs (GPEARI) of the Ministry of Finance (OECD, 2022[3]). In the Czech Republic (Box 4.7), high-level co-ordination in the implementation of national SME strategy (2021-2027) is also ensured by an inter-Ministerial Management and Coordination Committee. Its design was based on an inter-ministerial consultation process aimed at identifying existing policy measures and budgetary resources to be reallocated and co-ordinated under the strategy’s umbrella (OECD, 2024[2]).
The Czech SME Support Strategy 2021–2027 is a comprehensive framework aimed at strengthening SME competitiveness by addressing key challenges in access to finance, digitalisation, internationalisation, innovation, workforce skills, and sustainability. The initial assumptions underpinning the strategy were that Czech SMEs lag behind in productivity, R&D intensity, and digital adoption compared to larger firms and international peers. The strategy acknowledges that SMEs are essential for economic growth but require targeted policy support to increase competitiveness. The strategy was designed to strengthen SME participation in higher-value segments of GVCs, address regional disparities in SME development, and improve linkages between foreign and domestic firms, particularly in R&D-intensive sectors. While Czech SMEs are well-integrated into manufacturing GVCs, their participation remains concentrated in lower-value segments, and foreign firms continue to rely significantly on imported inputs, limiting knowledge spillover. The key goals of the strategy include:
Enhancing SME competitiveness by integrating them into foreign investor supply chains and establishing a permanent presence in foreign markets through trade missions and economic diplomacy initiatives, as well as by providing industry-specific collaboration opportunities and programmes
Promoting digitalisation through funding for Digital Innovation Hubs (DIHs), awareness campaigns, and voucher schemes;
Strengthening access to finance, including the expansion of credit guarantees;
Supporting innovation and R&D, including SME participation in knowledge transfer mechanisms;
Addressing workforce skill gaps by improving vocational training and fostering university–industry collaboration;
Encouraging SME greening by incentivising energy efficiency measures, promoting the uptake of renewable energy sources, supporting clean mobility initiatives, and advancing circular economy practices alongside sustainability reporting support.
The strategy places a strong emphasis on fostering SME innovation and science–business collaboration, implementing targeted measures to strengthen linkages between academia and industry. For instance, Technology Transfer Offices (TTOs) at universities received increased funding with efforts to better align university incentives with business collaboration, ensuring that research outputs are more readily transferred to SMEs. Additionally, the Pilot Applied PhD Programme was introduced to encourage doctoral students to engage in applied research projects in partnership with SMEs, thereby fostering stronger innovation ecosystems. The strategy also aligns public R&D spending with sectoral innovation priorities through the Smart Specialisation Strategy (RIS3), ensuring that investments support high-potential areas such as advanced materials, green technologies, and digitalisation. To further incentivise private sector innovation, the strategy recommended a shift from traditional corporate R&D tax incentives to payroll-based R&D tax credits, facilitating greater SME benefit from financial support for research activities. As a result of these efforts, 50% of Czech SMEs engaged in product or process innovation in 2020, nearly double the rate of other Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries. However, despite these advancements, SME spending on R&D remains low at just 0.3% of GDP, highlighting the need for continued policy interventions to further strengthen SME innovation capacity.
A mid-term evaluation of the Czech SME Support Strategy was started in June 2024 by the OECD in collaboration with the Czech Ministry of Industry and Trade, with financial support from the European Commission’s DG REFORM. Triggered by shifting circumstances following the COVID-19 pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the evaluation sought to re-assess the strategy’s objectives and progress. It is important to note that while several positive developments have been observed, some of these achievements build on earlier initiatives—particularly the predecessor programmes under the Operational Programme Entreprise and Innovation for Competitiveness (OP EIC) 2014–2020. The key positive effects recorded so far include: SME export volumes increased by 30% between 2012 and 2022, despite no significant increase in the number of exporting SMEs; high-speed internet access for SMEs rose from 34.5% in 2020 to 45% in 2023, reflecting improvements in digital infrastructure; the Electromobility Guarantee Programme resulted in the acquisition of over 5 300 electric vehicles (EVs) and 2 200 charging stations within six months; and although R&D expenditure funded by businesses remains low at 60% of the EU average, government and EU funding for R&D increased from 0.44% to 0.61% of GDP between 2017 and 2021
Source: (OECD, 2024[2]; OECD, Forthcoming[14]).
Poland could take inspiration from Czechia’s Strategy to support SMEs in Czechia for the period 2021-2027 by adopting a more integrated and targeted approach to SME policy co-ordination, ensuring that support measures align with both national economic priorities and regional development needs. Czechia has successfully streamlined inter-ministerial collaboration by clearly defining the roles of institutions responsible for SME support, investment promotion, and innovation, reducing fragmentation and enhancing policy coherence . Additionally, Czechia’s emphasis on linking SMEs with foreign investors through structured supplier development programmes and cluster-based co-operation has strengthened SME participation in GVCs. Poland, which faces challenges in fostering FDI-SME linkages, could benefit from a similar strategy that promotes technology transfer, international partnerships, and regional specialisation. By formalising SME engagement in FDI ecosystems and strengthening sector-specific policies, Poland can enhance SME competitiveness and innovation, ensuring that its SMEs are better positioned to integrate into global markets while supporting national economic growth.
Case of Portugal
Like Poland, Portugal lacks a standalone SME strategy. Instead, initiatives aimed at SMEs are incorporated into various national strategies and action plans, making SME policy a cross-sectoral issue that involves multiple Ministries and implementation agencies. The formation of government task forces to oversee the execution of national strategies and foster inter-agency collaboration is a common occurrence in Portugal:
Startup Portugal, a public-private entity in which Competitiveness and Innovation Agency (IAPMEI) and National Innovation Agency (ANI) are partners, was created to oversee the execution of the National Strategy for Entrepreneurship.
Another example is the Digital Transition Action Plan, which is managed by the Digital Portugal Task Force.
The Capitalise programme, designed to enhance financing conditions for Portuguese SMEs, is overseen by the Task Force for the Capitalisation of Companies (EMCE).
The execution of Portugal 2020 depends on both horizontal co-ordination among different ministries, agencies, and thematic Operational Programmes, and vertical co-ordination between Development and Cohesion Agency (AD&C), the Regional Coordination and Development Commissions (CCDRs), and seven regional Operational Programmes, one for each NUTS 2 region. The national and regional Smart Specialisation Strategies, which are essential for Portugal to access EU funding, are the most crucial strategic documents guiding the allocation of EU funds in policy areas related to FDI-SME diffusion. Compliance with these strategies is obligatory in the execution of Portugal 2020 investments in research and innovation and is a priority in other areas, such as SME competitiveness support.
Portugal’s 2020-2030 Recovery and Resilience Plan, which outlines the country’s national priorities for utilising the Next Generation EU fund, the European Union’s flagship financial instrument for recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, also establishes a comprehensive framework for inter-agency co-ordination. The strategy’s governance model includes the formation of an inter-ministerial commission and a national monitoring committee, while technical co-ordination is provided by the Recover Portugal Task Force, AD&C, and the Office for Economic Policy and International Affairs (GPEARI) of the Ministry of Finance. The policy priorities and measures outlined in the Portugal 2030 Strategy will be primarily supported by EU funds (OECD, 2022[3]).
Case of the Czech Republic
Another example is the Strategy to support SMEs in Czechia for the period 2021-2027 which aims to enhancing inter-ministerial co-ordination. The strategy provides an overarching framework for the implementation of over 100 policies specifically targeted towards SMEs. This involves multiple competent ministries and agencies, given the interdisciplinary nature of the strategy. To facilitate effective co-ordination, the strategy outlines the establishment of a Management and Coordination Committee. This committee serves as the principal body responsible for managing, co-ordinating, and monitoring the implementation of the strategy. It convenes at least annually to discuss the current progress and status of the various measures, propose changes to implementation plans within each key area as necessary, and suggest amendments to the strategy itself. In the framework of the strategy’s implementation, steering and technical inter-ministerial meetings are organised monthly. Informal co-ordination practices also play a key role ensuring the co-ordination of the different institutional actors involved.
Source: (OECD, 2024[2]).
4.3.4. Inter-institutional collaboration could be more frequent, and often takes place through informal channels rather than formal
Insights from the EC/OECD Survey on Policies enabling FDI spillovers to domestic SMEs reveals that a relatively small proportion of FDI-SME policies involve collaboration among different institutions. 39% of FDI-SME diffusion policies involve an element of collaboration among different institutions in their formulation and implementation (Figure 4.7, Panel A). This includes initiatives and programmes that are designed and implemented jointly by agencies and ministries, or strategies and action plans that require a whole-of-government approach to be executed. Among the institutions that are most cited in the implementation of joint programmes, the Ministry of Development Funds and Regional Policy, the Ministry of Development and Technology, the Ministry of Finance, and the main implementing agencies (PARP and PAIH) stand out given the crucial role they play in supporting FDI and SME policies (Figure 4.7, Panel B). The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) plays a pivotal role in providing the necessary financial support to these institutions, enabling them to implement their respective policies effectively. Nevertheless, the implementation of business support tools is fragmented across ministries and national agencies with oversight in various areas.
Source: Author’s elaboration based on EC/OECD Survey of Institutions and Policies enabling FDI-SME Linkages (2024).
Informal inter-institutional collaboration and co-ordination play a significant role in the implementation of FDI and SME policies in Poland
Ministries and agencies such as the MRIT, PARP and PAIH frequently rely on informal channels to communicate and align their efforts (Table 4.3). For example, regular informal meetings and working groups bring together representatives from various departments to discuss ongoing projects and policy adjustments. These interactions facilitate quick decision making and the sharing of best practices, contributing to a more dynamic and responsive policy environment. Additionally, informal networks and personal relationships among officials across different institutions help bridge gaps and foster a collaborative culture.
Source: EC/OECD Survey of Institutions and Policies enabling FDI-SME Linkages (2024).
Despite the benefits, reliance on informal mechanisms can lead to inconsistencies and a lack of accountability. To enhance the effectiveness of inter-institutional collaboration, Poland could consider formalising these informal practices through the establishment of structured co-ordination bodies and regular inter-agency meetings with clearly defined agendas and objectives, following the example of the Netherlands (Box 4.8). Creating formal documentation and reporting mechanisms for these interactions can ensure transparency and enable better monitoring and evaluation of collaborative efforts. Furthermore, implementing a centralised digital platform for information sharing and project management could streamline communication and facilitate real-time collaboration across institutions, like it was done in the Invest in Holland Network. The FDI network in the Netherlands (or national acquisition platform) has several working groups focussing on specific themes and some national acquisition teams. The members of the platform share a project database (Achilles), networks, contacts, and intelligence (Regeczi, Zegel and Zuijdam, 2016[15]). Poland could also follow the experience of Portugal (Box 4.9) where horizontal co-ordination mechanisms are primarily formalised by laws and regulations, which describe the role and responsibilities of each institution, their internal management processes, and the policy areas where inter-institutional collaboration is required. Joint programming, whether for entire workstreams or targeted actions, and contractual partnership agreements are also used to foster greater collaboration between Portuguese implementing agencies and put forward joint policy actions. Inter-institutional committees have been also set up for the implementation of specific policy workstreams that require a whole-of-government approach like, for example, investment matters which take place in Portugal through the Permanent Commission for Investor Support (OECD, 2022[3]). By institutionalising its informal practices, Poland can improve policy coherence, reduce redundancies, and enhance the overall efficiency of its FDI and SME support frameworks.
High-level government councils, inter-agency committees and working groups dealing with investment, entrepreneurship and broader competitiveness could be established to ensure policy coherence as it was done in Portugal and the Czech Republic (Box 4.6). Inter-institutional collaborations could take the form of public or semi-public collaborative networks, which include vertical co-ordination (e.g. across tiers of government) and the exchange of information and streamlining of business support services. In this context, the Netherlands' approach exemplifies the importance of collaboration and co-ordination in investment promotion (OECD, 2023[1]).
Case of the Netherlands
The Netherlands Foreign Investment Agency (NFIA) effectively employs a collaborative and co-ordinated approach, as seen through managing the Invest in Holland Network, which comprises 14 organisations, including regional development agencies, city administrations, and other non-profit entities. This network provides comprehensive support to foreign investors, connecting them with appropriate public and private sector partners based on their investment type and location. The Invest in Holland Strategy 2020-2025 outlines the network’s joint operations, while allowing each partner to conduct additional investment promotion activities aligned with their priorities. From 2015-2019, the network facilitated around 1800 investment projects, totalling EUR 12 billion and creating or preserving about 57 000 jobs.
The Invest in Holland Network is co-ordinated through the National Acquisition Platform (NAP), which is chaired by the NFIA Commissioner, and includes representatives of each organisation. Quarterly meetings allow members to discuss joint short-term plans, assess progress towards achieving FDI targets, and evaluate the implementation of the Invest in Holland Strategy. Members also participate in networking and knowledge-sharing events throughout the year as well as brainstorming meetings on streamlining collaboration.
Investment prioritisation is handled by inter-agency Focus Teams, which promote investments in key sectors such as ICT, agrifood, life sciences and health, and sustainable energy. These teams regularly meet with industry companies and research institutions to identify new investment opportunities. They are also responsible for monitoring the business climate and bringing opportunities and threats to the attention of policymakers. In 2019, the Focus Team ICT, along with NFIA and 5 regional partners, attracted 8 high-quality ICT investment projects by developing various value propositions, preparing target lists, and visiting conferences and events to generate new investment leads. The Netherlands' success underscores the importance of a well-coordinated, inter-agency framework and prioritisation in enhancing the effectiveness of investment promotion strategies (NFIA, 2020[16]; NFIA, 2020[17]).
At the agency level, inter-institutional co-ordination in Portugal is frequent, although the extent of it varies from one agency to another. In the country, co-ordination with other institutions is formalised and ensured by the following mechanisms:
Laws and regulations
For example, the 2012 Law which approved Portugal Global - Trade and Investment Agency’s (AICEP) latest by-laws (amended in 2015 and 2020 but still in force) requires that AICEP collaborates with Competitiveness and Innovation Agency (IAPMEI) and the national tourism authority, Turismo de Portugal, to support the internationalisation of Portuguese firms and the promotion of their brands abroad. Similarly, the participation of the Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) and IAPMEI in the joint board overseeing National Innovation Agency (ANI) under a “hybrid” governance structure entrenched in legislation aims to remove policy silos in the areas of innovation and entrepreneurship and allow for some co-ordination between the Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Education and the Ministry of Economy and Digital Transition.
Joint programming
Co-ordination on SME and entrepreneurship policy issues in Portugal takes place across the board between AICEP, IAPMEI and ANI, with AICEP focusing on projects strengthening the internationalisation of Portuguese companies, and IAPMEI and ANI on their innovation and technological capabilities. For joint programming to work a clear distribution of roles and responsibilities, shared monitoring tools and a code of conduct are often needed to ensure the effective implementation of joint actions.
Contractual partnership agreements
AICEP has signed co-operation protocols with the Azores Business Development Society (Sociedade para o Desenvolvimento Empresarial dos Açores, SDEA), which is responsible for supporting business development and attracting foreign investment in the autonomous region of Azores. The protocols have fostered collaboration between the two entities on issues relating to the internationalisation of Azorean companies, and facilitated the inclusion of Azores in AICEP’s site selection platform, which helps investors identify the best location within Portugal to set up their business.
Inter-institutional committees
Inter-agency co-ordination on investment matters takes place through the Permanent Commission for Investor Support (Comissão Permanente de Apoio ao Investidor, CPAI), which is managed by AICEP and gathers representatives from different public institutions, including IAPMEI, Turismo de Portugal, the Portuguese Environment Agency, the Tax and Customs Authority, the Ministry of Economy and Digital Transition and the CCDRs. The CPAI is responsible for ensuring a close follow-up of investment projects of potential national interest by monitoring administrative procedures applicable to the issuance of licenses, permits and other approvals, thus ensuring faster responses.
It is important to note that many entities involved in FDI-SME linkages in Poland, including regional development agencies (RDAs) and Special Economic Zone operators, function as independent or semi-autonomous entities, often with distinct financial objectives. As a result, traditional top-down co-ordination mechanisms may be less effective in aligning their activities with national investment and SME development strategies. A more flexible, incentive-based approach could enhance co-ordination while respecting the autonomy of these entities. Poland could encourage voluntary industry-led councils to facilitate knowledge-sharing, promote best practices, and foster deeper co-operation between foreign investors and domestic SMEs. Additionally, targeted financial incentives, such as co-funding for collaborative projects or preferential access to public support schemes, could be leveraged to encourage closer alignment with national priorities. Digital platforms for data exchange and policy co-ordination could also improve transparency and reduce inefficiencies. Adopting a "soft governance" approach would ensure greater coherence across public and private actors while maintaining operational flexibility.
Source: OECD (2022[3]).
4.4.1. Poland’s use of M&E frameworks and strength in stakeholder engagement
Evaluating the economic impact of public policy interventions is crucial for governments to identify and rectify shortcomings, especially in initiatives aimed at FDI-SME diffusion, to increase their effectiveness. This process involves the implementation of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) frameworks at various stages of the policy cycle (ex ante, mid-term, ex post), targeting specific projects, organisations, programmes, or policies. These evaluations, which can be process- or impact-oriented, are enforced by law or as part of a contract, serving learning or accountability purposes. A comprehensive M&E framework plays a vital role as an "early warning mechanism" for potential system failures, ensuring that policy measures across different domains yield the anticipated outcomes.
Poland has made progress in engaging with stakeholders when developing or reforming regulations
Compared to other OECD economies, Poland fares quite well in the quality of communication, consultation, and stakeholder engagement when developing regulations. The inclusion of businesses, citizens, and the public in the process of shaping, reforming, and challenging regulations is crucial for enhancing their design and quality. When stakeholders are meaningfully engaged, it often leads to increased compliance rates, particularly when they feel their viewpoints have been acknowledged and considered (OECD, 2021[18]). This aspect is especially pertinent in the context of FDI-SME linkages. The regulatory process can be significantly enriched by the contributions from investors, SMEs, clusters, associations, and multinational enterprises. Their inputs can help shape regulations that foster stronger FDI-SME diffusions, promoting economic growth and development. According to the iREG, Poland has made progress in the quality of stakeholder engagement in developing regulations and reached the average level of OECD countries (Figure 4.8). The country has implemented stakeholder engagement practices with a dedicated methodology. For example, the Rules of Works of the Council of Ministers updated in 2019 state that draft laws can be returned to ministries if public consultation did not take place or if the consultation process did not comply with the rules, including if the consultation report is absent. During the development of draft regulations or rules, Poland invites academics or experts to participate in informal consultations to provide different perspectives on policy problems. For some regulations there is a stakeholder engagement in place to inform about the nature of the problem and to inform discussions on possible solutions. Also, Poland joined the majority of OECD members in listing consultations on a central platform (legislacja.rcl.gov.pl/), which acts as a single entry point for stakeholders (OECD, 2021[18]).
Despite being above the OECD average, Poland still lags behind the EU average in stakeholder engagement, highlighting areas for potential improvement. One of the primary challenges is the need for more consistent and systematic engagement practices. While Poland has made significant progress in involving stakeholders through consultations and platforms, there is still room to strengthen these efforts. For instance, as seen in other EU countries, increasing the inclusivity and frequency of consultations with businesses, academics, and public organisations can lead to more effective regulatory processes. Furthermore, it is crucial that feedback from these stakeholders is not only collected but also meaningfully integrated into the policymaking process to enhance the quality of regulations. To create a regulatory process that is both inclusive and participatory, Poland should aim for fewer regulatory changes coupled with more robust public consultations. Such consultations enable a broad range of perspectives to be considered during decision making, resulting in more effective and widely accepted regulations. Moreover, they foster a sense of ownership among stakeholders, thereby increasing the likelihood of successful implementation.
4.4.2. The utilisation of M&E tools in Poland is not systematic across all relevant policy efforts in the context of FDI-SME initiatives
Despite conducting some regulatory impact assessment (RIA), Poland lags behind OECD and EU averages in terms of comprehensive implementation across primary laws and subordinate regulations. RIA is a systematic process used to critically analyse the potential impacts, both positive and negative, of proposed or existing regulatory measures (OECD, 2023[19]). Well-designed regulations can significantly enhance the productivity, innovation, and overall performance of SMEs. They can foster a conducive environment for FDI, which in turn can provide SMEs with access to advanced technologies, knowledge, and global markets. On the other hand, poorly designed regulations can create bureaucratic hurdles, erode trust in government actions, reduce the attractiveness of the investment environment, and limit the opportunities for SMEs to leverage FDI for growth and innovation. Therefore, it’s essential that regulations are transparent, evidence-based, and consider a variety of perspectives. When compared to the OECD and EU averages, Poland’s implementation of RIA is lagging, both for primary laws and subordinate regulations, as indicated by the OECD Indicators for Regulatory Policy and Governance (Figure 4.8). This includes mechanisms to monitor and ensure the quality of impact assessments. Additionally, Poland needs to improve in the systematic adoption of RIA, which involves formal requirements and the frequency with which RIA is conducted. Lastly, increasing transparency in the RIA process is also essential.
OECD Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance, 2021
Note: The more regulatory practices as advocated in the OECD Recommendation on Regulatory Policy and Governance a country has implemented, the higher its iREG score. The indicators on stakeholder engagement and RIA for primary laws only cover those initiated by the executive (75% of all primary laws in Poland).
Source: OECD Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance (iREG) 2021, https://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/indicators-regulatory-policy-and-governance.htm.
A crucial element that requires scrutiny is the enforceability of RIA outcomes. If the results of the RIA do not carry mandatory implications, it could compromise the evidence-based policymaking. Guaranteeing that the outcomes of the RIA carry obligatory weight could be a significant area for enhancement. Even though Poland conducts the SME test to assess the regulatory impacts on micro, small and medium-sized companies (Box 4.10), it’s imperative for the country to improve its RIA systems to align with international standards and best practices. New requirements to strengthen impact assessments for government policy proposals (Box 4.11) are rather formalistic, and their added value is diminished by over-regulation and frequent changes to legislation (European Union, 2023[20]).
Under the 2018 Act on entrepreneur’s law, every proposed legislation impacting economic activity must undergo an SME test. This involves consulting with relevant SME stakeholders, assessing potential impacts, and establishing measures to mitigate these impacts.
SME organisations and representatives are typically involved in these consultations respectively to the thematic scope of the draft law, with a few key business organisations participating in most legislative discussions. These organisations represent various sectors and types of businesses and advocate for them in government and business council (Rada Dialogu Społecznego) debates. Additionally, all SMEs and the general public can participate in open public consultations via an online portal.
If the assessment identifies a negative impact on SMEs, it is mandatory to proportionally reduce administrative obligations towards this group. A range of mitigating measures is available, and if none can be adopted, a justification is required.
In Poland, the SME test is part of the RIA, and the results are published in a publicly available RIA report accompanying any draft law under public consultation. The RIAs are scrutinised by the body responsible for the RIA quality in the Chancellery of the Prime Minister.
Source: OECD (2021[21]).
The Development of the Impact Assessment System in Poland project, implemented under the Strategy for Responsible Development until 2020 (with an outlook to 2030), has been successfully completed. The project enhanced regulatory impact assessment processes, particularly for SMEs, by developing methodologies for evaluating the costs and benefits of regulations and promoting evidence-based policymaking. As a result, several key tools were developed to support regulatory assessment:
A manual for cost calculation, providing methodologies for assessing the financial impact of regulations on businesses;
A manual for assessing regulatory benefits, offering guidance on evaluating the economic and social advantages of regulatory measures;
A calculator for the cost of standard administrative activities, designed to quantify administrative burdens imposed on businesses.
MRiT continues to focus on reducing regulatory burdens, particularly for SMEs. Work is currently underway on a draft regulation aimed at further simplifying business regulations and reducing administrative burdens.
Source: Ministry of Development and Technology of Poland (2017[13]); (https://legislacja.rcl.gov.pl/projekt/12383815).
Ex post evaluations in Poland could benefit from more systematic application and increased transparency to better assess the impact and efficiency of regulations
Ex post evaluations in Poland, which assess the effectiveness and efficiency of regulations once they are in force, could be conducted more systematically and broadened beyond administrative burdens. These evaluations are crucial as they ascertain the extent to which regulations met their originally intended goals, do not impose unnecessary costs on citizens and/or businesses, and continue to deliver good outcomes for the community (OECD, 2023[19]). The Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance (iREG) survey shows that there has been limited improvement in quality of ex post evaluation systems of primary laws and subordinate regulations in Poland between 2018 and 2021. The country falls behind its EU and OECD peers in methodology of ex post evaluations, their oversight and quality control, systematic adoption, and transparency (Figure 4.8). Ex post evaluations can be required at the request of the Council of Ministers or subsidiary bodies, the Chief of Centre for Strategic Analysis, the Ombudsman for SMEs, and the President of the Government Legislative Centre. However, very few evaluations have been conducted according to these recent procedures (OECD, 2021[18]). In the context of FDI-SME policies, ex post evaluations are particularly important because they provide a means to measure the impact of FDIs on the growth and development of SMEs. By assessing the outcomes of these policies, policymakers can gain valuable insights into their effectiveness, enabling them to make necessary adjustments to enhance their efficacy.
Regular reviews provide an opportunity to assess the effectiveness of regulations in practice and to make necessary adjustments (OECD, 2021[18]). An active ex post evaluation mechanism could be established to identify initiatives that are not cost-effective and allow for the enhancement of those that demonstrate positive performance. This mechanism would involve a thorough analysis of each regulation to assess its effectiveness and impact. Each ministry should be responsible for conducting an annual assessment of their specific regulatory topics. The results of these assessments should be compiled into a yearly regulatory report which would provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of current regulations and highlight areas where action is needed. The report should be made public to ensure transparency and accountability. It would serve as a tool for continuous improvement, allowing for the identification of best practices and areas for improvement. The publication of these reports would also foster a culture of accountability among ministries and provide a basis for informed decision making.
Access to granular firm-level data is essential for understanding the dynamics of FDI-SME linkages and designing evidence-based policies. Currently, Poland lacks a unified system to systematically track SME participation in FDI-driven value chains, limiting the ability to assess the spillover effects of foreign investment on domestic enterprises. Strengthening data infrastructure by integrating administrative datasets—such as tax records, customs data, and business registers—could enable more robust policy evaluations and provide policymakers with a clearer picture of how foreign firms interact with local SMEs. Countries such as Denmark and Germany have successfully leveraged firm-level microdata to monitor SME growth trajectories and evaluate the effectiveness of investment attraction policies. Establishing a centralised, anonymised database accessible to policymakers and researchers would improve the quality of analysis, enhance policy responsiveness, and ensure that interventions are tailored to the specific needs of SMEs engaging with foreign investors.
Collaboration between public institutions and the academic community remains an underutilised resource in assessing the effectiveness of FDI-SME policies in Poland. While informal consultation with experts occurs, a more structured partnership with universities and research institutions could strengthen the empirical foundation of policy design. Establishing dedicated advisory panels composed of academic experts, policymakers, and industry representatives could enhance policy evaluation by incorporating rigorous research methodologies and independent assessments. Countries such as Finland and the Netherlands have integrated public-academic partnerships into their policy evaluation processes, allowing for the systematic analysis of FDI-SME interactions and the dissemination of evidence-based policy recommendations. Poland could consider launching joint government-academic research initiatives, providing funding for SME-related policy studies, and fostering data-sharing agreements to enable deeper analysis of FDI-SME spillovers. Strengthening these collaborations would not only improve policy effectiveness but also ensure that Poland remains aligned with best practices in evidence-based policymaking.
4.4.3. Less than one third of FDI-SME policy initiatives in Poland have integrated M&E frameworks
The use of M&E tools by government institutions in Poland is limited. The OECD/EC survey findings show that only 29% of FDI-SME policies implemented in Poland have been evaluated (Figure 4.9). Notably, this percentage is lower than benchmark countries like Czechia and Portugal, which have evaluated 53% and 49% of their implemented FDI-SME initiatives, respectively (OECD, 2022[3]; OECD, 2024[2]). The utilisation of M&E tools by Polish institutions is not systematic, but it is in place for relevant policy efforts in the framework of national strategies (e.g. National Smart Specialisation Strategy, National Strategy for Regional Development 2030, Strategy for Responsible Development for the period up to 2020 (including the perspective up to 2030)) and for those programmes funded by the European funds (e.g. the European Funds for Smart Economy). Evaluations are undertaken mostly for policies that provide financial support schemes, in direct (e.g. GOSPOSTRATEG, BRIK, Development of start-ups in Eastern Poland, Financial Shield for Large Companies) or indirect forms (e.g. R&D tax relief) to encourage certain types of business activities, and technical assistance, information, and facilitation services, seeking to improve the uptake of knowledge and facilitate interactions between foreign and domestic firms (e.g. Organisation of B2B meetings, Foreign Trade Offices, Organisation of business missions, and Enterprise Europe Network).
Source: Author’s elaboration based on EC/OECD Survey of Institutions and Policies enabling FDI-SME Linkages (2024, 2023, 2021).
Poland could enhance its M&E framework to ensure that policy decisions are based on solid evidence and that the impact of these decisions is effectively monitored and evaluated. This will help to ensure that policy initiatives aimed at FDI-SME diffusion are successful and deliver the expected results. For example, the establishment of a government-level Action Plan on Regulation could be a first step. This plan, developed in accordance with OECD recommendations, should outline the country’s regulatory strategy, providing a roadmap for regulatory processes and ensuring consistency across different sectors. It serves as a reference point for all stakeholders, fostering transparency and accountability, and streamlining regulatory processes to align all regulatory actions with the country’s strategic objectives. Poland could also use Czechia’s experience as an example (Box 4.12). Even though the utilisation of M&E tools by Czech institutions involved in FDI-SME policy is not systematic, but it is in place for relevant policy efforts like the national SME strategy.
According to the OECD Indicators for Regulatory Policy and Governance and evidence from the EC/OECD Survey on Policies enabling FDI spillovers to domestic SMEs (Figure 4.9), Czechia demonstrates a robust implementation of regulatory impact assessment (RIA) compared to the OECD average. The country has developed a well-established RIA process for primary laws and subordinated regulations. This process includes conducting a comprehensive RIA for regulations with significant impacts, as well as providing a basic overview of impacts for all draft primary and secondary legislation originating from the executive.
Act No. 47/2002 establishes an obligation for the national government to submit an annual report to the Chamber of Deputies on the development of SMEs, which includes an evaluation of the effectiveness of support and the efficiency of resource utilisation from the central government budget, and a plan for further enhancements to support effectiveness.
The Strategy to support SMEs in the Czech Republic (2021-2027) features provisions about mid-term evaluation and stipulates the preparation of annual implementation reports, also featuring insights about the main SME trends in the country, to be presented to the Parliament. The Ministry of Industry and Trade holds responsibility for monitoring the implementation of measures across the different institutions involved. The 2021 annual report evaluated the strategy to be of medium success. There will be a mid-term evaluation in 2024, after which the Strategy may be revised accordingly.
Source: OECD (2024[2]) https://doi.org/10.1787/4c97d104-en.
According to the survey, the primary role of investment promotion, SME, and innovation agencies in Poland is focused on policy design and implementation, rather than evaluation, while ministries perform all mentioned core activities. In many EU Member States, government actors involved in the management of EU funds have to adopt comprehensive M&E frameworks to allow for the collection of data and the implementation of ex ante and ex post policy evaluations (OECD, 2023[1]). In Poland, both the Ministry of Development and Technology (MRIT) and the Ministry of Development Funds and Regional Policy (MFIPR) undertake policy evaluations in addition to their other core activities – policy design and implementation (Table 4.4). That is because the MFIPR is the managing authority for EU Structural funds and it works in co-operation with the Ministry of Science and Higher Education and the Department of Innovation and Industrial Policy at MRIT, which is responsible of the process of selecting and managing smart specialisations, to distribute money for projects that meet smart specialisation criteria. However, the survey reveals that Polish government agencies responsible for FDI-SME policies identify policy implementation as being their primary activity, followed by policy design and, to a much lesser extent, policy evaluation. For example, National Centre for Research and Development (NCBR),Polish Agency for Enterprise Development (PARP) and Bank Gospodarstwa Krajowego (BGK) are the only implementing authorities under mentioned ministries that are also intermediate bodies in the transfer of EU funds. Therefore, their programmes are mandated to undergo evaluation, whereas other agencies are not subject to this requirement.
Source: Author’s elaboration based on EC/OECD Survey of Institutions and Policies enabling FDI-SME Linkages (2024).
Stakeholder engagement has been strengthening amidst implementation challenges and regulatory instability
The Ministry of Development and Technology in Poland has a robust stakeholder involvement mechanism. This is achieved through internal consultations, engagement with business organisations, and meetings with various policy stakeholders. The consultation process involves both formal and informal channels of communication, ensuring a comprehensive approach to policy design and implementation. For example, the Department of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises within the ministry has a system of internal consultations for new strategies. It also engages with entrepreneur organisations for consultations on various programmes. This process, although sometimes more time-consuming than internal consultations, is vital for incorporating diverse perspectives. The consultation process is typically conducted in a written format, with some organisations proactively reaching out to the Department for consultations. The Department of Innovation and Industrial Policy conducts consultation groups, on which gathers representatives of regional administrations. The Department of Economic Regulation Improvement conducts meetings with entrepreneur groups to gather different ideas and identify challenges and solutions. The consultation process with implementation agencies is relatively unstructured, and consultations with other relevant ministries and institutions are decided “case-by-case”.
The MRiT faces several challenges in stakeholder engagement, including the need for stronger co-operation with enterprises and concerns about regulatory instability. The Ministry is legally obligated under Article 70 of the Law on Entrepreneurs (March 6, 2018) to conduct an annual review of legislation governing economic activities and report on actions taken as a result of this review. Additionally, Article 67 of the same law mandates that new regulations affecting businesses must adhere to principles of proportionality and necessity, ensuring minimal administrative burdens. Despite these legal requirements, practical challenges remain. Businesses continue to express concerns about regulatory unpredictability, with frequent policy changes making it difficult to plan long-term investments. Additionally, while formal legal mechanisms exist for reviewing legislation, more structured and transparent engagement with enterprises is needed to ensure that regulations align with business needs and support economic competitiveness. Strengthening public-private dialogue and improving regulatory stability would enhance investor confidence and foster a more predictable business environment. Addressing these challenges requires not only adherence to legal review obligations but also proactive collaboration with the private sector to ensure that policies remain effective, inclusive, and responsive to evolving economic conditions. Bank Gospodarstwa Krajowego (BGK) in Poland has implemented a standardised monitoring and evaluation framework to assess the effectiveness of its SME programmes, which are systematically evaluated on an annual basis. (Box 4.13). As part of this process, the bank collects data and information from 1000 SME clients who are part of the program. This data collection is conducted mainly through surveys and interviews, to gather comprehensive insights into the programme’s impact on these businesses. In addition to the SME clients, BGK also collects data from a control group of 1000 businesses. This control group consists of businesses that are similar to the SME clients but are not part of the SME programme. The data from this control group provides a baseline that BGK uses to compare and evaluate the effectiveness of the SME programme. Once the data is collected, BGK compiles it into a report, which provides a detailed analysis of the SME programme, including its strengths, areas for improvement, and overall impact on the SME sector and economic development. The report is then used to inform policy decisions and improve the SME programme for future iterations. This standardised monitoring and evaluation framework allows BGK to ensure that its policies and programmes are effective and beneficial for its clients. It also enables the bank to continually improve its services and contribute to the growth and development of SMEs in Poland.
Supporting Entrepreneurship through BGK Sureties and Guarantees
BGK has been offering de minimis guarantees to Polish entrepreneurs in the SME sector for ten years since 2013 as a part of the government programme Supporting Entrepreneurship through BGK Sureties and Guarantees. The de minimis guarantee programme provides a guarantee for bank loans when an SME is unable to provide sufficient collateral. Over the past ten years (from mid-2013 to mid-2023), BGK covered a total of about 612 000 loans with a total value exceeding PLN 280 billion. The guarantees were distributed among more than 256 000 different businesses and reached a total value of more than PLN 184 billion. In June 2023, de minimis guarantees collateralised a quarter of the value of all active loans granted to Polish SME businesses (24.5%).
Methodology of the programme evaluation
The methodology for evaluating the de minimis guarantee programme involves a quantitative survey conducted by CBM Indicator for BGK from June 2 to 30, 2023. The purpose of it was to assess the impact of de minimis guarantees on SMEs' access to financing and their development. The survey, which includes phone interviews and desk research, targeted 1000 SMEs that received de minimis guarantees in 2022. In addition, a control group of 1000 SMEs, reflecting the overall sector structure, is also included in the survey. This approach allowed for the measurement of the outcomes of the de minimis guarantee by comparing guarantee beneficiaries with an average enterprise operating in the Polish SME sector. The study also included estimates of the total financial gap in the Polish SME sector, providing a comprehensive view of the programme’s impact.
Impact of de minimis guarantees on the development and operation of SMEs
The results of regular evaluation studies of the scheme invariably confirm the exceptional importance of the de minimis guarantee for micro, small and medium-sized enterprises in Poland:
It has improved access to financing, unlocking financing opportunities that would not have been available otherwise. Survey showed that 50% of the businesses which obtained a loan with a de minimis guarantee in 2022 would not have got it without this programme backing.
Recipients of BGK guarantees tend to perform better than similar businesses that have not benefited from guarantee support and much better than SMEs in general, showing better liquidity, revenue, and employment rates. Such pattern can also be seen in the case of businesses that obtained a loan with a de minimis guarantee in 2022.
The guarantee recipients were more likely than businesses in the control sample and more likely than SMEs in general, to have set their sights on developing their export activities in the past year.
A substantial portion of businesses invested in innovative projects, with 28.2% of completed projects being innovative, higher than the SME sector average.
Recipients of BGK guarantees were relatively more likely to allocate funds for the purchase of buildings or land and to invest in intangible assets, as well as in digitisation and computerisation.
This indicates that the programme has not only facilitated access to financing but also contributed to the overall performance and growth of SMEs.
Impact of de minimis guarantees on economic development
The de minimis guarantee programme has also positively influenced economic development. Since 2020, there has been a significant increase in the percentage of businesses that would not have obtained financing at all without de minimis guarantees. By reducing the financial gap, the programme has contributed to the stability and growth of the SME sector, which is a key driver of economic development. According to estimates based on the declarations of recipients of BGK guarantees, over the ten years of the guarantee scheme’s operation, more than PLN 113 billion of additional credit has entered the economy, including nearly PLN 108 billion worth of working capital loans and more than PLN 5 billion worth of investment loans. The guarantees helped create 172 000 new jobs over the decade of the scheme’s operation and retain 454 000 jobs that were at risk. The 2022 guarantees alone have translated into about 11 000 new jobs and as many as 98 000 retained ones.
Source: Bank Gospodarstwa Krajowego (2023[22]).
The M&E capacities of the main Polish implementing agencies vary. The National Centre for Research and Development has a dedicated M&E unit - the Controlling Team Department, which is composed of six auditors and is responsible for conducting audits. . With over 60 audits conducted annually, the workload is a significant challenge and additional, well-managed human resources might facilitate the effort of the team. The Industrial Development Agency focuses on stakeholder engagement. They define strategic priorities by engaging in discussions with investors and representatives of large international companies, and taking into account experiences and expectations from other countries. They assess which regions could be attractive for incoming foreign investment and disseminate opportunities to universities to align educational programmes with the needs of companies. This is a crucial activity, as skills mismatches between education and labour market can hinder incoming investment, while a responsive higher education framework can help in expanding the talent pool, improve absorption capacity and the possibility of knowledge spillovers to local SMEs. They also promote dual education. To spread information to SMEs and create value chains, they use both media and a mix of formal and informal mechanisms at the local level. The Polish Agency for Enterprise Development (PARP) involves stakeholders, including companies and sector associations. However, the sector associations in Poland are fragmented, encompassing hundreds of associations, clusters, entities, foundations, and innovation parks. This fragmentation can make co-ordinated collaboration challenging, with partnerships often formed on a case-by-case basis. Formal agreements with some of these organisations are sometimes established through public procurement processes, such as tenders for delivering SME support programmes.
Capacities for analysis could be supported through the provision of specialised training to raise education and awareness of public servants on the process of monitoring and evaluating policy impacts. Continuous training for policymakers in evaluation methods should be ensured within the framework of the Action Plan on Regulation and be coupled with clear guidelines and methodologies for different types of ex ante and ex post evaluations. Similar capacity-building efforts should be made at the agency level to strengthen the monitoring capabilities of implementing agencies. Some progress has already been achieved in this regard, as demonstrated by PARP, which has an experienced and well-developed evaluation team. Notably the MFiPR has transferred the tasks of its evaluation unit for the FENG programme to PARP. This transfer has enabled PARP to conduct evaluations not only of its own programmes but also for other institutions covered by FENG, including the NCBR, BGK, and the NCN. These examples highlight the importance of establishing dedicated evaluation units within implementing agencies, staffed by specialised personnel with technical knowledge of M&E principles and tools.
A central regulatory review body could be established to oversee the regulatory process. This body would ensure the quality of RIA reports and co-ordinate regulatory policies across different ministries. It could also provide guidance and training to regulatory agencies on how to conduct effective RIAs. This body would play a key role in ensuring that all regulatory processes are conducted in a consistent and transparent manner. As an example, in the Slovak Republic, a RIA Committee has been established within the Ministry of Economy to oversee the quality of evaluations and co-ordinate their implementation across several ministries, the Government Office, and the Slovak Business Agency (OECD, 2022[4]).
4.4.4. Poland could enhance its M&E framework for evidence-based policy making and effective impact assessment
Poland should use quantifiable indicators and robust data tracking to complement qualitative methods for comprehensive policy impact assessment. The use of quantifiable outcome-based indicators should be systematic. Robust data tracking tools and feedback processes should be established to ensure that reliable data on impacts are available. In some instances, policymakers may need to develop new indicators or databases to monitor the implementation and impact of a proposed policy or regulation. This would involve identifying key performance indicators (KPIs) and setting up systems to collect and analyse data related to these KPIs (Box 4.14). The use of outcome-based indicators would provide a clear measure of the effectiveness of regulations and policies (OECD, 2018[23]).
While qualitative evaluation methodologies such as benchmark comparisons, client surveys, and stakeholder consultations are favoured by implementing agencies, these should be complemented by more quantitative and systematic approaches. Quantitative methods such as quality control assessments, cost-benefit analyses, and econometric assessments can provide more concrete and measurable results. They can help overcome the challenges of partial information and ambiguous results often associated with qualitative evaluations. There are already efforts in place, as demonstrated by the Polish Investment and Trade Agency (Box 4.13). The use of both qualitative and quantitative methods would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the impacts of regulations (OECD, 2018[23]).
The Polish Trade and Investment Agency (PAIH) uses a set of specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to monitor and evaluate the activities, which are tracked in their Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system:
1. Jobs Created: This KPI measures the number of jobs that have been created as a result of the projects implemented by the agency. The data source for this KPI is the investor declaration.
2. Capex: Capex, or Capital Expenditure, is a business expense incurred to create future benefit (i.e. acquisition of assets that will have a useful life beyond the tax year). For PAIH, this could refer to the investment made in the projects. The data source for this KPI is also the investor declaration.
3. Number of Successfully Closed Projects: This KPI tracks the number of projects that have reached successful completion. The data source for this KPI is news releases and investor declarations.
4. Number of Projects Serviced: This KPI measures the number of projects that the agency has provided services for. The data source for this KPI is at the firm-level.
In addition to the KPIs, PAIH employs advanced econometric models and newly introduced qualitative evaluation criteria to assess the impact of its activities on the local economy. The agency utilises customised analytical software to evaluate key investment projects, particularly those applying for public aid and government grants. Recent updates to the Programme for Supporting Investments of Significant Importance to the Polish Economy (2011-2030) have expanded PAIH’s assessment framework to include new strategic and innovation-based evaluation measures. These enhancements ensure that investment support aligns with national economic priorities while providing a quantitative and qualitative basis for measuring effectiveness and long-term economic impact.
Source: OECD survey on IPA monitoring & evaluation and prioritisation (2021).
References
[22] Bank Gospodarstwa Krajowego (2023), Outcomes of the de minimis guarantee after 10 years of the scheme operation – Report of 2023 Study, Bank Gospodarstwa Krajowego, Department of Research and Analysis, https://www.bgk.pl/files/public/Pliki/Ekspertyzy_i_badania/Raport_de_minimis_2023_ver_eng_.pdf.
[20] European Union (2023), 2023 Country Report - Poland, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, https://doi.org/10.2765/755853.
[8] Hayward, J. and V. Wright (2002), Governing from the Centre: Core Executive Coordination in, Oxford University Press.
[9] Matthes, C., R. Markowski and F. Bönker (2022), Poland Report. Sustainable Governance Indicators, Bertelsmann Stiftung: Gütersloh, https://doi.org/10.11586/2022112.
[12] Ministry of Development and Technology of Poland (2022), Productivity Strategy 2030, Ministry of Development and Technology of Poland, https://www.gov.pl/web/rozwoj-technologia/strategia-produktywnosci-2031.
[13] Ministry of Development and Technology of Poland (2017), Strategia na rzecz Odpowiedzialnego Rozwoju do roku 2020 (z perspektywą do 2030 r.), Ministerstwo Rozwoju, Departament Strategii Rozwoju, https://www.gov.pl/documents/33377/436740/SOR.pdf.
[16] NFIA (2020), Evaluatie van de NFIA 2010-2018, https://open.overheid.nl/repository/ronl-2342ca2e-27ee-4da1-a407-ea24af4d63ad/1/pdf/bijlage-evaluatie-van-de-nfia.pdf.
[17] NFIA (2020), Invest in Holland Strategie 2020-2025, https://open.overheid.nl/repository/ronl-1b3f0055-62a6-4757-80e7-7f32236d8f43/1/pdf/bijlage-invest-in-holland-strategie.pdf.
[2] OECD (2024), Strengthening FDI and SME Linkages in Czechia, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/4c97d104-en.
[19] OECD (2023), Government at a Glance 2023, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3d5c5d31-en.
[1] OECD (2023), Policy Toolkit for Strengthening FDI and SME Linkages, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/688bde9a-en.
[3] OECD (2022), Strengthening FDI and SME Linkages in Portugal, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d718823d-en.
[4] OECD (2022), Strengthening FDI and SME Linkages in the Slovak Republic, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/972046f5-en.
[5] OECD (2021), Better Governance, Planning and Services in Local Self-Governments in Poland, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/550c3ff5-en.
[18] OECD (2021), OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2021, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/38b0fdb1-en.
[11] OECD (2021), “SME and entrepreneurship policy frameworks across OECD countries: An OECD Strategy for SMEs and Entrepreneurship”, OECD SME and Entrepreneurship Papers, No. 29, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9f6c41ce-en.
[21] OECD (2021), The SME Test: Taking SMEs and entrepreneurs into account when regulating: Annex to the OECD Best Practice Principles on Regulatory Impact Assessment, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://web-archive.oecd.org/2022-11-24/646632-the-sme-test.pdf.
[10] OECD (2019), Latvia - Good institutional practices in promoting policy coherence for sustainable development, https://www.oecd.org/governance/pcsd/toolkit/goodpractices/.
[23] OECD (2018), Mapping of Investment Promotion Agencies in OECD Countrie, http://www.oecd.org/investment/Mapping-of-Investment-Promotion-Agencies-in-OECD-Countries.pdf.
[7] OECD (2012), “STI governance structures and arrangements”, in OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 2012, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/sti_outlook-2012-9-en.
[14] OECD (Forthcoming), Evaluation of the SME Strategy of Czechia.
[6] Peters, B. (2018), “The challenge of policy coordination”, https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2018.1437946, Vol. 1/1, pp. 1-11, https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2018.1437946.
[15] Regeczi, D., S. Zegel and F. Zuijdam (2016), R&D Attraction Networks. A report on stakeholder co-operation and STI diplomacy to attract investments in R&D.