The Impact of the Opening of Producer Services on the International Competitiveness of Manufacturing Industry
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I think that this paper analyzes the part of the Literature review well, statistical analyzes are graphically expressed, described, research conclusions are set and the overall impact on competitiveness.
Author Response
Dear Professor,
On behalf of my co-authors, we thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript, we appreciate your positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript.
After studying your comments carefully, we have made revision about some spelling mistake and changes in numbering of the chapters and subsections, which marked in red in the paper. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. Attached please find the revised version, which we would like to submit for your kind consideration.
We would like to express our great appreciation to you and reviewers for comments on our paper.
Thank you and best regards.
Yours sincerely,
Cuiping Yu
Reviewer 2 Report
In this paper, the authors analyze the effects of the degree of openness in produces’ service industry on the international competitiveness of the manufacturing industry using 55 countries’ yearly dataset from 2010 to 2017 with the pooled OLS specifications. The overall estimation results are consistent with those found in existing empirical studies and hypothetical expectations of theoretical discussions. My major concern is the authors’ adoption of the pooled OLS technique rather than usual panel estimation techniques, the fixed or random effect models. In addition, I think the manuscript can be improved much better if the authors can address and clarify the following several issues.
(Specific comments)
- As mentioned, I am curious about the specifications of the estimations. Even though the authors compiled 55 country-level panel data, they conducted just ordinary least square estimations. Maybe the readers have more attention on the relationship between the opening of producer’s service and the competitiveness of the manufacturing industry within a country as time goes by, not just scatter plots without reflection of each country’s characteristics. I would like to strongly recommend that the authors address why they adopt the pooled OLS specifications, at least.
- In the Introduction, the authors need to present the contribution of this paper and the main results more clearly.
- The specification in Equation (1) and the related explanations on it are not matched well.
- The subtitle of 2.2 should be revised relevantly. The subtitles of 2.1 and 2.2 are exactly the same.
- The hypothetical signs of the control variables with respect to the dependent variable, the competitiveness of the manufacturing industry can be added to Table 1.
- I am afraid whether the positive relation is still secured for the sample without several (right upper) outliers in the right panel in Figure 1.
- Why is the data span from 2010 to 2017? And how are 55 countries selected? Appropriate explanations are needed.
- There are several English typos.
Author Response
Dear Professor,
On behalf of my co-authors, we thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript, we appreciate your positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to your comments are as flowing:
- Comment: as mentioned, I am curious about the specifications of the estimations. Even though the authors compiled 55 country-level panel data, they conducted just ordinary least square estimations. Maybe the readers have more attention on the relationship between the opening of producer’s service and the competitiveness of the manufacturing industry within a country as time goes by, not just scatter plots without reflection of each country’s characteristics. I would like to strongly recommend that the authors address why they adopt the pooled OLS specifications, at least.
Response: Theoretically, the least square method can obtain the best estimate and provides a more efficient test method for panel data. So in this section, this paper uses the baseline regression, robustness test and heterogeneity test to analyze the impact of producer service’s opening on the export competitiveness of the manufacturing industry from the national level. (Line 372-377).
- Comment: in the Introduction, the authors need to present the contribution of this paper and the main results more clearly.
Response: To sum up, in this study we use the Least square regression to analyze the opening of producer service’s impacts on the international competitiveness of the manufacturing industry based on the data of the main economies of 55 countries from 2010 to 2017. The conclusion shows that the opening of the producer service has positive impacts. The main contribution of this paper maybe the following: 1) the empirical analysis is from the aspect of the world with 55 countries and the industry, instead of just one country, which can be an practical evidence to the theory of opening economy and means the conclusion should be universal for most economies. 2) we use not only just the ratio of producer services’ trade to GDP to measure the opening of the producer service, but also the regulatory restriction index of FDI on producer services from the opposite side of the producer service’s opening. (Line 74-84)
- Comment: The specification in Equation (1) and the related explanations on it are not matched well.
Comment: The hypothetical signs of the control variables with respect to the dependent variable, the competitiveness of the manufacturing industry can be added to Table 1.
Response: sorry for forgetting renew the variable symbols in the equation with the related explanations and we have made the corrections respectively.
- Comment: The subtitle of 2.2 should be revised relevantly. The subtitles of 2.1 and 2.2 are exactly the same.
Response: the numbering of each section has been adjusted.
- Comment: I am afraid whether the positive relation is still secured for the sample without several (right upper) outliers in the right panel in Figure 1.
Response: A corresponding scatter diagram and the fitting line are drawn to show some preliminary statistical evidence between the index RCA and s_trade, s_fri. It can be seen from Figure 1 that the two fitting lines are inclined to the upper right and lower right respectively, and the slope is relatively easily observable. It is preliminarily determined that the RCA index of manufacturing export competitiveness changes with t the proportion of producer services trade in GDP in the same direction. RCA index changes opposite with the index of producer services foreign regulatory restrictions s_fri. Therefore, there is the possibility of s_trade and s_fri having some impacts on RCA. So further econometric analysis of the variables can be made. (Line372-396)
- Comment: Why is the data span from 2010 to 2017? And how are 55 countries selected? Appropriate explanations are needed.
Response: Because the service trade and FDI plunged abnormally until 2010 due to the world economic crisis in 2008.and the availability of the latest FDI Regulatory Restrictiveness Index is in 2017, this paper use the panel data from 2010-2017 of the 55 countries……. . According to the GDP and added value of manufacturing output in 2017, the total GDP of these 55 countries accounted for 91 percent of the world's GDP, and the total value-added of the manufacturing sector accounted for 89.2 percent. Therefore, these 55 countries are representative samples of the world. Annual data for the 55 countries from 2010 to 2017 were used. (Line 338-340, Line 348-352)
- Comment: There are several English typos.
Response: we’re sorry for our incorrect writing and carelessness and it has been corrected.
Special thanks to you for your good comments. Other changes are some spelling and style adjustments. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper.
We appreciate for your warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Yours faithfully,
Cuiping Yu
Reviewer 3 Report
The formal assessment of the article:
- The article consists of 17 pages, including the actual text of the work (pages 1-15) and references (pages 15-17). The article has been divided into 4 main parts: 1. Introduction; 2. Materials and Methods; 3. Results and 4. Conclusions. Parts 1, 2 and 3 of the article have been divided into subsections. In the opinion of the reviewer, the applied layout of the work is logical and easily acquaints the reader with the topic of the work, methodology and results.
The only comment of the reviewer concerns incorrect numbering of subsections in chapter 2 (subsection 2.3 occurs twice) and chapter 3 (incorrect use of numbering 3.3.3. And 3.3.4.), as well as incorrect numbering of the last chapter, which should be marked with number 4.
- The methods of correlation and regression analysis (Diamond Model) were used in the article. Multiple regression models have been used as an analytical and diagnostic tool. The reviewer has no objections to theoretical description, their use or the presented interpretations.
- References includes 47 publications directly related to the topic of the work and, in the opinion of the reviewer, this number is sufficient. All publications are in english.
- The work contains one double figure and seven tables. The tables show the modeling results. Both, the figures and tables, are legible and do not require improvement.
- The reviewer has no objections to the language and formatting, which seems to meet requirements of the journal.
The substantive assessment of the article:
An empirical article. In the opinion of the reviewer, the title of the work corresponds to its content. The aim of the work was clearly stated both in: section 2.1. Theoretical analysis: producer services' opening and the export competitiveness of manufacturing industry; as well as in part 3. Results and in opinion of reviewer it was realized
The logical layout of work deserves praise, as it easily guides the reader through the theoretical aspects related to the international competitiveness of the manufacturing industry. A great added value is a rich literature review, as well as the language of the work, in which the basic methodological assumptions and the results, were explained in a very accessible way.
Detailed comments:
Line 52 - …this paper selects samples from 35 countries…; there should be: …this paper selects samples from 55 countries…
Author Response
Dear Professor,
On behalf of my co-authors, we thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript, we appreciate your positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to your comments are as flowing:
- Response to comment: incorrect numbering of subsections in chapter 2 (subsection 2.3 occurs twice) and chapter 3 (incorrect use of numbering 3.3.3. And 3.3.4.), as well as incorrect numbering of the last chapter, which should be marked with number 4.
Response: we’re sorry for our negligence of the numbering and have corrected the numbering of 5 chapters and the subsections.
- Response to comment: Line 52 - …this paper selects samples from 35 countries…; there should be: …this paper selects samples from 55 countries…
Response: we’re sorry for our incorrect writing and carelessness and it has been corrected in Line 52 of the paper as “this paper selects samples from 55 countries to empirically analyze …”.
Special thanks to you for your good comments. Other changes are some spelling and style adjustments. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper.
We appreciate for your warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Yours faithfully,
Cuiping Yu
