Quantifying Subnational Economic Complexity: Evidence from Romania

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This research fills a gap in the literature? The authors did not link the literature and the resulting hypotheses. Location Quotient or Balassa index and Economic Complexity Index should be explained in much more detail.

The discussion section should be more complex

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I would like to thank you for the relevant remarks you have made after reviewing the manuscript entitled “Quantifying subnational economic complexity. Evidence from Romania” (ID: 1860975). These comments are all valuable and helpful for revising and improving the paper. The main corrections and the responses to the comments are attached.

Once again, thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. I appreciate the hard work and hope that the corrections will be met with approval.

Best regards,

the Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

The submission " Quantifying subnational economic complexity. Evidence from 2 Romania" is an interesting study about economic complexity and inequality in Romania. Indeed, more studies are needed to analyze the regional performance of economic complexity; however, some issues must be addressed.

T1. The section “2.2. Data collection” should be presented in the Method section.

T2. The authors failed to present the multivariate regression model in the Method section.

  3. The authors did not discuss econometric techniques (OLS, Panel data, FE, RE, etc.) used in this article.

44. The Method section must be reformulated.

  5. Table 1 presents an unimpressive econometric model. In my opinion, this paper contributes by analyzing the regional effect of economic complexity on inequality in Romania.

 6. The authors must present statistical tests for multicollinearity and autocorrelation. Please, at least discuss the possibility of endogeneity in your econometric model.

77. Which statistical test did show that the fixed-effect panel is the adequate technique for your model?

88. Does Table 3 present estimates with robust errors for heteroscedasticity?

99. Why did the authors not present autocorrelation tests for panel data? Moreover, how would the authors treat this econometric issue?

110. The authors failed to confront their econometric findings with the international literature.

111. The authors failed to present adequate limitations of this study.

112. The authors failed to present relevant policy implications.

Best regards

 

The Reviewer

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I would like to thank you for the relevant remarks you have made after reviewing the manuscript entitled “Quantifying subnational economic complexity. Evidence from Romania” (ID: 1860975). These comments are all valuable and helpful for revising and improving the paper. The main corrections and the responses to the comments are attached.

Once again, thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. I appreciate the hard work and hope that the corrections will be met with approval.

Best regards,

the Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper deals with a very important and interesting topic.

The introduction provides a good motivation (and literature review) for the paper.

The methods are adequate and allow to reach useful results.

The empirical analysis is interesting.

My overall opinion about this paper is very positive. I have however a key concern. It regards the discussion of the empirical evidence. From my point of view, a closer link with previous results from studies on related topics could be important.

The conclusion can also be improved, allowing more useful insights for policy action.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I would like to thank you for the relevant remarks you have made after reviewing the manuscript entitled “Quantifying subnational economic complexity. Evidence from Romania” (ID: 1860975). These comments are all valuable and helpful for revising and improving the paper. The main corrections and the responses to the comments are attached.

Once again, thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. I appreciate the hard work and hope that the corrections will be met with approval.

Best regards,

the Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, the current version is adequate.