Table 1.
Status of Reopening, Prospects for Earnings, and Anxiety Level in February 2020, by Province.
| Province | Reopening rate | Expect to reopen within |
Expected annual revenue change |
Anxiety level | Observations | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 weeks | 1 month | 1–3 months | Over 3 months | Cannot expect | Increase over 10% | Increase less than 10% | No change | Decrease less than 10% | Decrease over 10% | Cannot tell | ||||
| Liaoning | 27.8 | 12.9 | 11.0 | 6.3 | 1.4 | 40.5 | 4.4 | 2.8 | 15.4 | 7.2 | 39.7 | 30.6 | 5.2 | 225 |
| Shanghai | 35.3 | 17.5 | 16.9 | 9.4 | 1.2 | 19.8 | 6.1 | 0.2 | 3.9 | 8.4 | 52.7 | 28.6 | 6.1 | 345 |
| Zhejiang | 9.9 | 14.7 | 23.0 | 3.5 | 1.6 | 47.3 | 6.1 | 0.6 | 13.1 | 16.0 | 39.0 | 25.2 | 6.1 | 229 |
| Henan | 11.8 | 11.6 | 15.1 | 9.1 | 2.5 | 49.9 | 4.5 | 2.3 | 10.2 | 14.0 | 41.5 | 27.5 | 5.4 | 568 |
| Guangdong | 22.0 | 19.6 | 16.2 | 7.9 | 1.6 | 32.8 | 8.2 | 3.1 | 9.5 | 10.5 | 41.6 | 27.1 | 6.8 | 492 |
| Gansu | 17.3 | 11.0 | 16.6 | 11.4 | 3.7 | 39.9 | 4.2 | 1.0 | 11.0 | 7.7 | 46.2 | 29.9 | 6.4 | 310 |
| Beijing | 42.2 | 17.4 | 13.8 | 5.5 | 3.7 | 17.4 | 16.5 | 7.3 | 8.3 | 10.1 | 29.4 | 28.4 | 5.9 | 109 |
| Unknown | 25.0 | 25.0 | 16.7 | 8.3 | 8.3 | 16.7 | 25.0 | 0.0 | 8.3 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 16.7 | 5.8 | 12 |
| Total | 20.8 | 14.7 | 16.1 | 8.3 | 2.1 | 38.0 | 6.0 | 2.0 | 10.0 | 10.8 | 43.1 | 28.1 | 6.0 | 2278 |
Note: The reopening rate measures the percentage of firms that resumed production as of February 10. For SMEs that had not opened by then, the survey asked the respondents to estimate the time of reopening. Each cell represents the percentage of firms with the given reopening status. The anxiety column measures the anxiety level of respondents with a score ranging from 0 (no anxiety at all) to 10 (the highest level of anxiety). All the numbers in the table except for anxiety and observations are in percentages. When the telephone interviews were done, if the respondents were busy, we gave them the option to fill out the online questionnaire later on. Some of them did not fill in their firm names. As a result, they could not be linked to the original ESIEC data that included regional and industry information. These respondents are listed as “unknown” in the table. We adjusted the fraction of the retail industry in the survey data by multiplying a factor of four in this table.