Translated material
Plant named after Putin
82% of Russians support the nationalization of large enterprises
The All-Russian Center for the Study of Public Opinion (VTsIOM) found out how Russians feel about the recent attempts by the state to interfere in the management of private companies. The situation in Pikalevo was chosen as an example. It turned out that citizens not only approve of the prime minister’s decisive actions to resolve the Pikalevo crisis, where all three city-forming enterprises have stopped, but also positively assess the possible nationalization of private companies in advance. The survey was conducted on June 20-21, 2009. 1,600 people were surveyed in 140 settlements in 42 territories, regions and republics of Russia. The statistical error does not exceed 3.4%.The study participants were asked two questions: “How effective is the solution to the problem in Pikalevo, when Vladimir Putin forced the owners of factories to resume the work of unprofitable enterprises?” and “Do you agree that nationalization of large enterprises would be useful to overcome the crisis in the country?”
The results of the study are clear: to the first question, the majority (44%) answered that “Putin’s decision is only a temporary measure, but it does not fundamentally correct the situation.” It would seem that such a beginning could mean disapproval of the actions of the Prime Minister, but in fact, people, on the contrary, demand more decisive measures: “In order for everything to improve, it is necessary to nationalize Pikalev’s private enterprises, transfer them to the state, which will finance them from the state budget,” - - this is the complete option chosen by the majority.
Another 40% do not go that far in their wishes and are satisfied with the measures already taken: “Putin’s decision is absolutely correct. City-forming enterprises must work, even if unprofitably and “in storage,” and losses must be covered by their owners and the state.” But, unfortunately, it is obvious that those who chose this option have little idea of how the economy as a whole works - after all, if all enterprises start working “for storage” and at a loss, then there will be nowhere to get money for salaries.
“Putin’s decision is ineffective, it violates the laws of economics. In a crisis, maintaining a large staff and continuing the operation of unprofitable enterprises is inappropriate. The measures that Putin has taken only aggravate the situation, creating the illusion of stability,” only 5% of respondents share this opinion. 11% found it difficult to answer.
It is quite logical that 44% of respondents, answering the question about the benefits of nationalization, fully approve in advance of the return of property to the state. Another 38% “rather agree” that nationalization of large enterprises would be useful to overcome the crisis. Thus, 82% of Russians actually supported the total nationalization of large enterprises.
By comparison, as recently as October 2008, only 28% fully supported nationalization, and 30% were “more likely” to agree than to oppose. Accordingly, the number of opponents of non-market measures has sharply decreased - now only 5% “rather disagree” with nationalization, and 2% “completely disagree,” whereas in October last year 13 and 7% chose such options. It is worth noting that during the crisis there are fewer and fewer people who are indifferent to the fate of large factories - ten months ago 22% were undecided, while at the last survey there were only 11%.
And yet, despite such similar results on two related issues, experts note that it is necessary to distinguish between nationalization and government intervention. “It is obvious that citizens are somewhat confusing the two processes,” says Alexey Makarkin, first vice-president of the Center for Political Technologies. “But nevertheless, this is an objective trend during a crisis, when people begin to trust the state more than private entrepreneurs.” Mr. Makarkin notes that instead of the positive aspects of private business - initiative and less bureaucratization - excessive adventurism and weak social responsibility come to the fore. “Today, I would not say that such survey results pose any social threat. This is more of a reaction to a crisis, when the state is seen as a protector,” says the analyst. So far the state has received a certain amount of credit, but it all depends on what ends faster - money or the crisis. If the money runs out sooner, it is quite possible that the state will no longer be trusted so unconditionally.