evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

IPPC Subsidised Consulting for SMEs — Puebla's Five-Year Productivity Trial

Mexico · Puebla · See the Mexico profile · See the Puebla profile

Evidence: Randomised controlled trial Top 54% 67/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

A Puebla RCT offered 150 of 432 interested SMEs a year of subsidised IPPC consulting; only 80 took it up. Five years on, payroll records show treated firms had 5.7 more employees (+57%) and 72% higher total wages than controls.

432
Firms expressing interest
150
Firms randomly offered consulting
53% (80 of 150)
Take-up rate
+0.21 SD
Sales gain (1 year, adjusted) (1 year)
+0.22 SD
Return on assets gain (1 year) (1 year)
+5.7 employees (+57%)
Employment gain (5 years) (5 years)
+72%
Total wage bill gain (5 years) (5 years)

Details

Promoter
Instituto Poblano de la Competitividad (IPPC)
Period
2007–2015
Keywords
SME consulting, business development, management training

Context

Between 2007 and 2015, Puebla's Institute for Productive Competitiveness (IPPC) and researchers Miriam Bruhn, Dean Karlan and Antoinette Schoar ran a randomised trial offering subsidised business consulting to small and medium enterprises across urban, semi-urban and rural areas of the state.

Objectives

The trial tested whether subsidised, mentor-led business consulting improves SME sales, profitability and employment, and whether firms take up a heavily subsidised offer at all.

Activities

Of 432 firms that expressed interest, 150 were randomly offered a year of consulting — four hours a week with a mentor from one of nine local consulting firms, covering goal planning, marketing, HR, financial accounting and long-term strategy, with IPPC subsidising 70-90% of the cost depending on firm size. The remaining 282 firms served as the comparison group. Only 80 of the 150 offered firms took up the offer (53% take-up), most declines citing insufficient funds even for the subsidised share.

Results

Among those treated, one year on, sales (adjusted for employees and assets) rose 0.21 standard deviations and return on assets rose 0.22 standard deviations versus the comparison group; treated firms were more likely to keep formal accounts (93% vs 85%) and to run marketing campaigns (57% vs 44%). Using Mexican social-security administrative data, the effects proved durable: five years after the intervention, treated firms had added 5.7 more employees on average (a 57% relative gain) and their total wage bill was 72% higher than in comparison firms.

Conclusions

Take-up was under 55% even with heavy subsidies, so the practice's real-world reach depends on solving the affordability and time-commitment barriers that kept roughly half of interested firms from starting the programme at all.

Implementation

Indicative cost
Medium (€50k–€500k) — IPPC subsidised 70-90% of consulting cost depending on firm size; four hours/week mentoring for one year, delivered via nine local consulting firms.
Time to results
Medium (1–3 years) — One-year consulting intervention (2007-2008 cohort per the JPE study); effects measured at 1 year and durable employment/wage effects tracked 5 years later via administrative data through the 2007-2015 study window.
Staffing & skills
mentors from nine local consulting firms, IPPC programme staff, academic evaluation team (Bruhn, Karlan, Schoar)

Conditions for success

  • a state institute (IPPC) able to coordinate multiple private consulting firms
  • partial subsidy (70-90%) to lower the firm-side cost barrier
  • sufficient consultant capacity to deliver weekly four-hour mentoring sessions

Common failure modes

  • under 55% take-up even with heavy subsidy — insufficient funds/time to commit to weekly consulting cited by decliners, meaning half of interested firms never received the treatment

Where it fits

Governance type
state public institute (IPPC) coordinating private consultants
Scale
state/regional (Puebla)

Commonly funded by

National / regional programmes

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Similar practices you may find useful

★ 91

Amsterdam Impact

Netherlands

4-year social entrepreneurship programme now focused on impact entrepreneurship. Amsterdam Impact strengthens the ecosystem for all companies that simultaneously create …

★ 86

Unicorn Factory Lisboa

Portugal

Unicorn Factory Lisboa is a platform of programs and hubs, inspired by international best practices, which supports startups and scaleups …