were almost insignificant in the tourism industry. Thus, program performance may be tied to size and sector differences—an issue that should be the subject of further study.

Evaluations of both CIMO-PAC and CONOCER administered questionnaires to beneficiaries and members of the control group. CIMO-PAC questionnaires collected quantitative information on personnel, payroll, training, fixed assets, and inventories, as well as qualitative information on productive characteristics of the firms, market, organization, employment, remunerations, and training. The CONOCER questionnaires gathered sociodemographic characteristics, work experience and on-the job training for workers, as well as quantitative data on the production and employment of beneficiaries. For workers, the evaluation focused on gathering indicators related to the objectives of the program such as increases in certification of labor competencies, wages, job-mobility, increased skills, reduced turnover and improved working conditions. They also collected qualitative data with regards to business performance, human resource management and labor competition.

The qualitative surveys of CIMO and CONOCER indicated that most beneficiaries are in general satisfied with the programs. However, these results differ between firms of different sizes and firms within different sectors. Medium-sized enterprises tend to be the most satisfied, while small and micro firms perceive that the program supports are insufficient. For instance, in the CIMO-PAC (1997) evaluation it was noted that while the benefits of the supports outweighed the costs for medium-sized enterprises, costs outweighed benefits for small and micro firms.

Evaluations of FIDECAP (2003) and FAMPYME (2003) also surveyed beneficiaries to assess the impact of the programs. Only 40 percent of FIDECAP firms said the program resources influenced their performance. The FAMPYME evaluation concluded that beneficiaries were indifferent in their view of whether the program increased employment and production growth.

# _Panel Evaluations_

Tan and Lopez-Acevedo (2005) used panel data (1991-1996) collected by the Ministry of Labor on two cohorts of CIMO participants and a control group, to evaluate more rigorously the net impacts of CIMO on SME performance. Two previous evaluations of CIMO by the STPS found seemingly contradictory results: evidence of improvements in intermediate outputs (worker training, production processes and adoption of quality control) but no or negative impacts on productivity. While these findings may simply reflect poor design and implementation, they may also be the result of self-selection of low-productivity SMEs into the program. The authors tested this hypothesis using difference in difference methods (DID) to remove pre-intervention productivity differences between groups, and found a sign reversal of the program impact coefficient, with CIMO participants now enjoying a 6-11 percent net performance gain in the 1994 to 1996 period. In a second Mexico study, Tan and Lopez-Acevedo (2007) evaluated CIMO, CRECE and COMPITE using three rounds of enterprise surveys (ENESTYC 1995, 1999 and 2001) with information on program participation linked to annual panel industry surveys fielded by INEGI. These data were used to identify different cohorts of the treatment and control groups matched on propensity scores of pre-program attributes. All three programs showed net gains on intermediate outcomes 15