Does Geopolitics Have an Impact on Energy Trade? Empirical Research on Emerging Countries

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is very interesting and presents an anlysis on an important topic. 

I have some concerns (mainly on the methodology) that you want to be addressed prior potential pubblication. Also, I suggest some references that, in my view, would help strenghten the paper.

 

- The econometric specification is a gravity-type model. Generally, the overall fit for these type of specifications (especialluy when fixed effects are included) is very high. Differently, the R-squared in the estimates are quite low, suggesting that either the specification is not optimal, or that important variables have been omitted (or both). I suggest to compare your results with other estimators (e.g. PPML, or other type of estimators) and also account for other control factors such as trade agreements, policy measures, quality of institutions, and so on. If collecting more variables would be too time-consuming, I believe that (at least) using a more restrictive set of fixed effects would help.

- Why your model does not account for distance? I may understand why this may be the case, but the readers should be informed more explicitly on how you have accounted for transaction costs, which are undoubtedly an important issues in trade. See, for instance: 

Beghin, J. C., & Schweizer, H. (2020). Agricultural Trade Costs. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy.

- You may find of interest to read and mention similar papers that have modelled one-way trade, such as the following papers:

Dal Bianco, A., Boatto, V. L., Caracciolo, F., & Santeramo, F. G. (2016). Tariffs and non-tariff frictions in the world wine trade. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 43(1), 31-57.

Jayasinghe, S., Beghin, J. C., & Moschini, G. (2010). Determinants of world demand for US corn seeds: the role of trade costs. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 92(4), 999-1010.

- Table 5 is very informative, but it would be very much informative to add some sensitivity analysis using a different threshold to separate the two samples (e.g. a threshold a bit above the median or a bit below the median) so to show, more clearly, when the two effects start to differ. This sensitivity analysis would help deriving implications from your study. 

- Table 6 makes me suspiious about the temporal correlation of the phenomenon you are analyzing. All ten lags are statistically significant, with effects that do not die out. Are lags 11, 12, and so, significant as well? You may want to explain in much more detail why you have stopped after ten lags. The sentence "Through regression with more lag periods, it is found that the inhibiting effect of GPR on energy imports and exports of emerging economies disappears in about 13 months" is unfortunately too vague, and need to be better explained. 

- Equations 4, 5 and 6, lead me to think that there may be a joint determination of GPR and P. How are you addressing potential endogeneity issues? What is the estimation strategy (e.g. system of equations, IV) ?

- As above, also the equation 7, although it is clear and informative, may be further enriched with a sensitivity analysis, moving forward or backward the variable event. This would allow to conclude on potential anticipated (or postponed) effects of the event. An application of this strategy, to conclude on the effects of policies (or other type of events) can be found in the following paper:

Santeramo, F. G., & Cioffi, A. (2012). The entry price threshold in EU agriculture: Deterrent or barrier?. Journal of Policy Modeling, 34(5), 691-704.

 

 

Minor points:

Table 1 is missing the units of measurement.

Tables 7, 8 and 9: correct typos (e.g. LnExpert should be LnExport)

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Thank you！

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper examines the impact of geopolitics on energy trade in emerging countries. The authors use many approaches to prove the impact of geopolitics on energy trade. However, I would like to suggest some points the paper improved.

 

1. The introduction is too long to read and find the necessary and objective of this paper. Please make a literature review section then readers can easily read the introduction.

2. Please provide the objective of this paper clearly on 122 line. I understand you have a lot of contribution and put together in this paper. But, readers might be confused what is the main point in this paper.

 

3. In each section, you provide model explanation and then show the results. I suggest that you explain the methods in one section. Then, show the findings from the methods.

 

Overall, this paper could be a vaulable research, but the structure of this paper should be improved to publish in the Sustainability.

 

Thank you,

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Thank you！

Author Response File: Author Response.docx