Europe is about to acquire a lot of new numbers about enlargement. The Commission publishes its annual progress reports in the autumn, an enlargement reform package is due alongside them, and Iceland votes this weekend on whether to join the queue at all.
Before the numbers arrive it is worth being precise about what the existing ones measure, because the most widely cited independent scoreboard is more interesting under the bonnet than its headline figures suggest.
The Integration Readiness Index is published by EPIC, the European Policy Innovation Council, at readinessindex.eu, and was released in June 2026 as a study paper co-published with the Friedrich Naumann Foundation. Its authors are Antonios Nestoras, Emil Kirjas and Bernada Cunj. It scores ten candidate countries from 0 to 10 across the years 2021 to 2025, benchmarked against Croatia in 2011, the last country to complete an accession negotiation.
The 2025 field runs: Montenegro 6.8, Albania 6.7, Moldova 5.87, Ukraine 5.85, Serbia 5.5, North Macedonia 5.5, Kosovo 3.61, Georgia 3.26, Bosnia and Herzegovina 2.91, Turkiye 2.81.
Read as a league table that is a clean story: two front-runners, a competitive middle, and a bottom group in trouble. Read as a measurement it is more complicated, because the five indicators feeding those numbers are not measuring the same category of thing.
Two of them describe a position. State of Play captures where a country currently stands against the accession criteria. Chapter Status captures how far through the technical negotiating chapters it has got. These are stocks. They move slowly by construction, because a chapter opened does not close quickly and a legal system does not change in a year.
Two of them describe movement. Annual Progress captures change over the year. Accession Momentum captures the tempo of the process itself, the conferences, the clusters, the formal steps. These are flows. They can move sharply in either direction within a single reporting cycle.
The fifth, Recommendation Delivery, is different again. It measures whether a country did the specific things the Commission asked it to do, which is neither a stock nor a general rate of change but a compliance rate against a named list.
The consequence is that two countries can arrive at similar scores by opposite routes. One may have a strong accumulated position and no movement. Another may have a weak position and a fast tempo. Serbia and North Macedonia both score 5.5 in 2025, and treating that as a statement that they are in the same situation is exactly the error the composite invites.
The trajectories are more informative than the levels, and this is where separating stocks from flows pays.
Turkiye scored 3.25 in 2021 and 2.81 in 2025: a candidate moving away from the finish line over five years. Bosnia and Herzegovina fell from 4.14 in 2024 to 2.91 in 2025, the sharpest single-year drop in the set, and did so after winning the opening of negotiations. Georgia has slid from 4.06 in 2023 to 3.26 in 2025.
A drop of that speed cannot be a stock indicator moving. Legal alignment does not unwind in twelve months. What falls that fast is momentum and recommendation delivery, which is to say the process stalling and the asks going unmet, while the underlying position stays roughly where it was. That is a useful distinction for anyone deciding what to do about it, because a country that has stopped moving is a different problem from a country that has gone backwards.
Every input to the index is a European Commission progress report. Nothing else goes in.
That is a deliberate and defensible choice. It makes the index auditable, consistent across countries and years, and immune to the charge that its authors substituted their own judgement for the official record. Anyone can check a score against the document that produced it.
It also means the index inherits everything the Commission's assessments carry with them, including their blind spots and their political timing. Progress reports are not neutral instruments. They are written by an institution with its own view of how fast enlargement should proceed and its own reasons for emphasis in a given year. An index built solely on them measures the EU's recorded assessment of readiness, which is not the same object as readiness.
That distinction is worth holding onto rather than dismissing. It means the index is at its most reliable as a measure of the EU's own consistency, and at its least reliable as an independent verdict on a candidate. Both are useful. They are not interchangeable.
The autumn progress reports will produce the next vintage, and with it the first real test of the diplomatic surge of the past year. The Council held four accession conferences in a single day in July 2026. Target dates are in circulation for Montenegro, Albania, Ukraine and Moldova. If that activity was substantive, it should show up first in momentum and recommendation delivery, and only later in state of play and chapter status. If it shows up in momentum alone, the tempo rose and nothing else did.
Iceland is the reminder of what the index cannot yet see. If Saturday's vote reopens negotiations, the EU will acquire a candidate with no recent progress reports and therefore no score, arriving from inside the single market with most of the substantive work already done. The most ready applicant in the field would be the one the readiness measurement has nothing to say about.
None of which is an argument against measuring. It is an argument for reading the components rather than the headline, and for treating a composite score as the beginning of a question about a country rather than the answer to one.
.png)
