{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029327084030800133, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02350184131235353, 'mean_word_length': 4.832096837172979, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Russian Enterprises in the Spring 2020: Covid-19 Pandemic Reactions and Opinions on the Role of the State in the Economy

Abstract— The paper analyzes and comments on the results of a regular survey of Russian enterprises in the real sector, which was conducted by the Institute of National Economic Forecasting of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Information on the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on the activities of domestic enterprises is provided. The paper presents the opinions of enterprises on the role of the state in the economy, including in the pandemic. The assessments of enterprises regarding bureaucracy and corruption in Russia are considered. The data on investment intentions of enterprises are given. Information on the level of competition with foreign manufacturers in the Russian market is presented. The views of Russian enterprises on the concept of extended producer responsibility (EPR) and the prospects for its expansion in Russia to all phases of the product life cycle are reflected.

reflected the processes taking place in the Russian economy.
The survey has confirmed that the crisis phenomena associated with the pandemic are frontal in nature and directly affect the vast majority of economic activities. Of the surveyed enterprises, 73.6% reported that they had already been affected by the pandemic (Table 1). In addition, 80.9% of the enterprises indicated that the volume of sales of their products had decreased due to the pandemic (Table 2).
Thus, 77.6% of the respondents indicated that the demand for their products in the domestic market had decreased, and another 23.2% indicated a decrease in demand in foreign markets. In addition, 44.6% of enterprises noted the facts of delays or stoppages in payments for already delivered products (in other words, there was a real surge in nonpayments). Another 40.8% of the respondents reported difficulties with paying taxes and 41.6% said that there were difficulties with paying salaries to employees ( Table 3). As a result, 38.1% of enterprises had already reduced the number of their employees by the time of the survey ( Table 4).
In modern conditions, the key role in the fight against the crisis is played by the state and its economic policy [3,4]. In this regard, it is very important to understand how enterprises regard the role of the state in the economy. During previous crises, there was always an increase in the proportion of enterprises wishing to strengthen government intervention. This time, there has been no such shift. Moreover, in comparison with the previous survey, the share of enterprises advocating increased direct participation of the state in the economy has decreased approximately two timesfrom 19.2% in 2018 to 9.2% in 2020 (Table 5). Of course, this shift in proportions can also be partly attributed to changes in the sample. However, it is not improbable that some enterprises have come to the conclusion about the limited capabilities of the state in the economy.
A similar shift has also taken place in the assessments that enterprises gave to the state as an owner. While in 2018 the state was recognized as a more effective owner by 23.02% of the respondents, in 2020 their proportion was only 13.5% ( Table 6).
The effectiveness of the state's actions during the crisis largely depends on the level of bureaucracy and corruption in the state power structures [5,6]. The survey has shown that the state of affairs in this area continues to gradually improve on the whole, although negative shifts were also noticed in a number of particular cases. For example, the share of the enterprises that reported that had faced almost no corruption pressure in the last 2-3 years noticeably increased. While in 2018 the share of such respondents was 48.65%, in 2020 it was already 63.9% or almost two-thirds ( Table 7).
As regards the reports about corruption of certain state power levels and structures, some unexpected answers were noticed. In particular, the share of the reports about the corruption of federal structures has increased very noticeably from 8.54% of answers in 2018 to 25.60% in 2020. Meanwhile, the proportion of complaints about corruption of local administrations has significantly decreased from 31.71% in 2018 to 17.40% in 2020. In other cases, the shifts were less significant, both positive and negative (Table 8). However, it is possible that these shifts were also partly due to an increase in the share of large enterprises in the sample structure.
The dynamics of reports about the bureaucratization of the state look similar. The structure of answers that reflect the general dynamics of bureaucracy has somewhat improved. The share of reports about increased difficulties in relations with the state bureaucracy has decreased from 35.04% in 2018 to 26.20% in 2020. Meanwhile, the share of reports about the absence of bureaucratic difficulties has grown from 8.55 to 13.80% (Table 9). At the same time, the frequency of complaints about the bureaucratization of a number of state structures has increased. For example, the bureaucracy of federal power structures, architectural planning and land management services, envi-  ronmental authorities and fire control bodies has begun to be mentioned more often.
Meanwhile, the respondents began to complain less often about the bureaucracy of local administrations, tax authorities and customs (Table 10). It should also be noted that the situation with bureaucracy in Russia is in general not improving as quickly as the situation with corruption.
As the experience of previous years shows, one of the main measures of adaptation of enterprises to the crisis is the reduction in investment. This has happened this time too: 37.2% of the respondents reported a complete halt in investment, and 31.4% reported a partial halt. However, previously launched investment projects are mainly being completed. As a result, the share of positive answers to the question about the implementation of investment projects at the moment turned out to be the highest over the last 11 years at 59.40% (Table 11).
At the same time, the crisis has already cooled the investment intentions of enterprises. The share of No. 1 2021 enterprises intending to implement investment projects in the next 1-2 years turned out to be lower in 2020 than in 2018-2019 (Table 12).
However, the crisis is not the only deterrent factor in the investment intentions of Russian enterprises. Another important factor is the value of the interest rate on loans. The survey data showed that 40.4% of enterprises were determined to increase their investments in case of a decrease in the interest rate (Table 13). This means that a softer interest rate policy of the Bank of Russia can really lead to a significant surge in investment.
The economic crisis usually leads to increased competition in the markets, and the survey data on the whole support this rule. In particular, in answering the question about competition from foreign manufactur-ers, the share of enterprises reporting its growth increased from 15.24% in 2016 and 19.05% in 2018 to 25.40% in 2020 (Table 14). In addition, enterprises began to report increased competition from manufacturers from post-Soviet countries. The share of such reports grew from 9.26% in 2016 and 9.45% in 2018 to 15.70% in 2020 (Table 15).
The frontal nature of the current crisis was also confirmed by the answers of enterprises on sales dynamics. The share of reports about decreased sales volumes sharply grew. While at the end of 2019 the sales volume on the whole decreased in 31.47% of the respondents, the proportion of such respondents in the spring of 2020 was already 48.50% (Table 16).
Meanwhile, for the sake of comparability, the question was formulated in such a way as to obtain  Table 6. Answers to the question: "Please formulate your attitude towards the state as an owner of enterprises?" (total of answers = 100%)

Period
In Russia, the state is a notoriously less efficient owner than private owners in any circumstances The state is currently a less efficient owner than private owners, but this is explained by the low qualification of Russian officials and poor control over their activities The state is an ordinary owner that is no worse and no better than the others In modern conditions, the state is a more efficient owner than private owners; at least the state is more focused on solving the problems of enterprises and increasing production  information about the sales dynamics in the previous six months, including the precrisis period. As for the sales dynamics in the period after the onset of the crisis, 80.9% of the respondents reported a decrease in sales volumes in April-May 2020.
In addition, studies on various aspects of sustainable development policy were continued as part of the survey. This time, Russian enterprises were asked the questions related to the so-called concept of extended producer responsibility (EPR). The need to develop this concept was caused by increased consumption and the related increase in waste.
The term and concept of EPR originated in the early 1990s and have since then become important elements of national economic policy in many countries around the world. Extended producer responsibility arises as an objective and integral response to production resulting in a huge amount of obsolete products that get into the waste stream (the most striking example of this type of product is electronics) [7]. The OECD defines EPR as an approach in which a manufacturer's responsibility for a product extends to all stages of the product's life cycle, including after the expiration of its service life [8]. In Russia, the EPR concept was legislatively enshrined in federal law No. 458-FL as of December 29, 2014 [9], which amended Federal Law No. 89 On Production and Consumption Waste.
According to the survey results, half of the surveyed enterprises are familiar with the concept of extended producer responsibility, and a quarter of them are engaged in the disposal of their own products after the end of their life cycle (Tables 17, 18).
The attitude of enterprises to the possibility of obtaining benefits from the implementation of the EPR concept is ambiguous, but overwhelmingly positive: 92.9% of the surveyed enterprises noted the exis-  tence of certain benefits (Fig. 1). Enterprises pointed to both environmental and socioeconomic benefits in their answers: reduction of damage to the environment and public health (42.4%); improvement of the company's image, improving relations with the population and government authorities (20%), and reduction in the amount of fines (16.5%).
Nevertheless, only 7.1% of enterprises consider the implementation of EPR concept measures as an opportunity to increase competitiveness and enter foreign markets, and the remaining 7.1% are either skep-tical about the possibility of deriving any benefits, or their type of activity is related to those activities for which the implementation of EPR measures is irrelevant or inapplicable (for example, in the pharmaceutical industry where a product is 100% used by the consumer; or where products do not have the end of service life 2 ).
Despite the generally positive attitude to the EPR concept, enterprises point to difficulties in the process of its implementation such as an increase in the cost of production (47.1% of answers), an increase in the bureaucratic burden (22.4%), and a weakening of positions in relation to unscrupulous competitors (23.5%). In other cases (14%), enterprises either do not face difficulties because they do not implement the concept, or there are no difficulties in its implementation (Fig. 2).
Unlike foreign countries, the EPR concept is currently legally applied in Russia only to such a phase of the product life cycle as disposal, and so enterprises were asked whether they consider it appropriate to expand its content to all phases of the product life cycle. Almost half of the enterprises answered in the affirmative (45.1%, Table 19).
It is noteworthy that the main reason why enterprises consider it important to expand the EPR concept to all phases of the product life cycle is the reduc-  tion in damage to the environment and public health (68.7%). Forty-one percent of enterprises consider it important to promote the introduction of new technologies, and 13.3% believe that it is important to increase competitiveness (Fig. 3).
The enterprises that did not consider it expedient to expand the content of the EPR concept pointed to the reasons such as an excessive increase in production costs (57%), an increase in bureaucratic burden (39.5%), and the insignificance of the real effect of the proposed measures (38.4%). Choosing the answer option "other," enterprises expressed opinions such as: "recycling must be performed by specialized companies"; "it is difficult to imagine how to organize the implementation of the concept in practice" (Table 20).
The key conclusions from the survey are as follows: (1) The negative impact of the coronavirus pandemic on Russian enterprises is frontal in nature and is expressed in phenomena such as a drop in sales, surge in mutual nonpayments for delivered products, difficulties in paying taxes and bank loans, layoffs of employees and a reduction in their salaries. (2) The situation with bureaucracy and corruption in Russia as a whole continues to improve. The share of answers about the absence of corruption pressure on the enterprise has reached 63.9%-this is a very good result. However, the situation in some state power structures is less optimistic.
(3) A significant share of enterprises (40.4%) is ready to increase investments in the event of a decrease in the bank interest rate. Consequently, further softening of the interest rate policy must lead to a fairly largescale increase in investment activity in the Russian economy.
(4) Half of the surveyed enterprises are familiar with the concept of extended producer responsibility, and a quarter of them are engaged in the disposal of their own products after the end of their life cycle. This indicates that the level of involvement of Russian enterprises in EPR processes significantly lags behind the level of leading foreign countries.
(5) Despite the fact that enterprises receive real environmental, social and economic benefits as a result of the implementation of the EPR concept, this process is associated with a number of economic and institutional difficulties. Nevertheless, almost half of the surveyed enterprises consider it possible to expand the content of EPR by extending it to all phases of the products life cycle. (6) Meanwhile, the other half of the surveyed enterprises consider it inappropriate to expand the content of the EPR concept, expecting additional economic and institutional difficulties and considering the effect of the proposed measures to be insignificant.