How the Marketization of Land Transfer Affects High-Quality Economic Development: Empirical Evidence from 284 Prefecture-Level Cities in China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
I enjoyed reading your paper. I think the structure of the paper is generally reasonable. While there are also several issues the authors should work on improving.
On middle-income trap
Lines 35-37: GDP per capita is a better way to measure if a country has reached a certain level of economic development than GDP solo. The authors should add the GDP per capita data here, indicating that Mainland China's economy has researched or nearly arrived at the level of being a middle-income country (also considered as a middle-developed country in much Mainland Chinese literature). However, would the growth continue?
I favor the author's opinion that marketization and continuing land reform would benefit Mainland China's economic growth. Therefore, the middle-income trap (MIP) is one factor that the authors did not discuss. However, discussing how to avoid the MIP in future policy proposals is also necessary. I understand it is difficult for Mainland Chinese scholars to talk about political reform, but try to propose some economic policies that can avoid the MIP. I provide some references in my review. I hope the authors can take the time and discuss them in the paper. For the MIP, the authors can refer to and discuss:
Doner, R. F., & Schneider, B. R. (2016). The middle-income trap: More politics than economics. World Politics, 68(4), 608-644.
Griffith, B. (2011). Middle-income trap. Frontiers in development policy, 39-43.
Zhou, S., & Hu, A. (2021). Will China Fall into the "Middle Income Trap"?. In China: Surpassing the "Middle Income Trap" (pp. 71-131). Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. (written by Mainland Chinese scholars, quite reasonable, I think.)
Iammarino, S., Rodríguez-Pose, A., Storper, M., & Diemer, A. (2020). Falling into the middle-income trap? A Study on the risks for EU regions to be caught in a middle-income trap. (Although it is an EU case, discuss and compare it with Mainland China's experience.)
On resource allocation, entrepreneurship, and private property rights
Lines 60-62 and line 269: You discussed resource allocation and provided some references. However, there's no clear definition of what resource allocation is here. The traditional neo-classical literature considered it to enhance the use of resources under a given work. However, the productivity frontier can be expanded (as you said in lines 272-273 about total factor productivity). Therefore, it is easier to allocate resources. But what are the demining factors? As the above references indicated, the rule of law and protecting private property rights are two critical factors. Noble Literatura R. Coase also considered the protection of private property rights as an essential factor for the success of Mainland China's economic development.
For Coase, see:
Coase, R., & Wang, N. (2016). How China became capitalist. Springer.
For dynamic resource allocation in economic growth. The opinion of Isreal Kirzner, an NYU Professor Emeritus, should also be considered. For Kirzner's arguments, see:
Huerta de Soto, J. H. (2008). The theory of dynamic efficiency. Routledge. (Pay special attention to Ch1 and Ch8)
Espinosa, V. I., Wang, W. H., & Zhu, H. (2020). Israel Kirzner on dynamic efficiency and economic development. Procesos de mercado, 17(2), 283-310.
Besides, one crucial factor that the author did not discuss. The land reform was started as a bottom-up initiative. Coase and N. Wang discussed the reference mentioned above. For a summary of Mainland China's marketization reform along with the bottom-up land reform in Xiaogao Village, see:
WANG, W. H. (2018). MARKETIZATION AND LIMITED GOVERNMENT REFORMS IN THE XI JINPING POLITICAL ERA: A POLICY ANALYSIS. New Perspectives on Political Economy, 14 (One thing interesting about this article is that it argued that Xi's first term had a lot of pro-market reform. What a pity that Mainland China does not follow this policy approach. I understand it is sensitive to say this directly in a state-funded project. But your pro-market opinion has illustrated what should be the common-sense based policy very well.)
Another question is, who is allocating the resources? Considering that the paper is a pro-market approach, it is missed to discuss the role of entrepreneurs as the driving force of the market economy. The farmers in Xiaogao Village were also entrepreneurs. It is essential to perceive the neoclassical (standard) economic theories that treat the production of capital as a black box that can constantly produce capital. While capital accumulation is ignored, I suggest you redesign your formula that deals with capital (line 404) and more to enhance the role of capital and entrepreneurial production.
For entrepreneurship as the driving force of the market economy, see:
Von Mises, L. (1998). Human Action. Auburn: Ludwig von Mises Institute (Pay special attention to the pages around p.248 on entrepreneurship.)
Foss, N. J., & Klein, P. G. (2012). Organizing entrepreneurial judgment: A new approach to the firm. Cambridge University Press. (Pay special attention to Ch1).
Lines 132-136, 173-176, and 239-241 are good points.
On real estate and credit bubble
In lines 183-184 and lines 284-288, you talked about real estate and banking issues. It is missed to discuss whether the current credit expansion is sustainable for Mainland China's economic growth. As you submit your paper to the journal called Sustainability, this factor should also be discussed.
The percentage of real estate sale revenues should be mentioned and discussed. I found some references that might help you:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1227161/china-local-government-income-from-land-sales/https://www.chinabankingnews.com/2021/06/15/local-government-land-sale-revenues-in-china-rose-from-50-billion-to-8-4-trillion-yuan-in-just-over-two-decades/
https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Caixin/China-s-plunging-land-sales-threaten-local-governments
Ahuja, M. A., Cheung, L., Han, G., Porter, M. N., & Zhang, W. (2010). Are house prices rising too fast in China?. International Monetary Fund.
Wang, W., & García, A. V. (2017). Business cycle and stability of China's financial and monetary system. Procesos de Mercado, 14(1).
For the process and consequences of central bank expansion, see:
Huerta de Soto, J. H. (2006). Money, bank credit, and economic cycles. Ludwig von Mises Institute. (Pay special attention to p. 506-507 on the process of credit expansion.)
Typeset problems
Lines 518-566 and 575-643 are two very long sections. You have split them into several ones.
Research limitations and policy recommendations should be in one section. The conclusion should have no subsections. It would help if you mentioned research limitations and policy recommendations only briefly. The roles of private property rights and entrepreneurship should also be discussed to connect the whole framework.
I hope my suggestions can help your revision.
Best,
The reviewer.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Abstracts must provide a clear summary of quantitative and qualitative data. Must give an explanation covering all the research results' main parts.
Another critical thing to consider is the research framework. Indeed, there are many articles describing the research results. But it does not give the reader exposure to the framework and schema.
The introductory and theoretical sections are too much written but lack substance.
The research design does not provide a visually clear flow. The results of this study may be good, but the paper does not offer an easy understanding for the reader. As a result, the results of the study are not precise.
The conclusion does not give precise results. What do you get? What is the value before and after analysis? There is no data on this, so it feels biased.
Recommendations are not required except for basic research.
Author Response
Wen Zhong
School of Economics and Management, Jiangxi University of Technology
Ganzhou, Jiangxi Province, China
September 28,2022
Dear Review expert,
It is a great honor to receive your valuable feedback. Your advice is very instructive. The authors have carefully studied and agree with the experts. We make the following modification instructions.
(1) Summary questions
We very much agree with the valuable comments made by external audit experts. The reason why the abstract does not quantitatively explain the results is that this article is a multi-dimensional construction of independent variables, so in view of the limitation of the abstract, there is no quantitative result to be presented, only qualitative description, and the relevant results are carefully analyzed in the text. We will make relevant corrections to the abstract based on the research purpose, content, results, etc.
(2) Study the question of the framework
We believe that the research framework of this paper is complete and reasonable, continuing the conventional practice of management papers, and also meets the requirements of journals. We will sort out the research framework again to make it clearer.
(3) Expound and theory too much about the problem
The ratio of the introduction to the theoretical space and the empirical evidence in this paper is reasonable, and the reason why the introduction and theory are too long is that the relevant institutional background has been discussed, with the purpose of understanding the content of the article and the purpose of writing, and achieving the marginal contribution of the paper. We will do more on the substance.
(4) Study design issues
Given the complexity of the issues under study, a clear description of the study design is required. We will further refine the study design.
(5) Conclusion question
We strongly agree with the external audit expert opinion and have added relevant explanations of the results at the conclusion.
The above is a description of the changes made, please criticize and correct any inadequacies
Thank you again for reviewing this article.
Sincerely,
Wen Zhong
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for the opportunity to read and review your manuscript submitted to Sustainability. After reading the manuscript, I can see that you have accomplished relevant research on marketization of land transfers and economic development. The research undoubtedly gives valuable findings. However, some issues stop me from being convinced that the current version is suitable for publication. Therefore, I provide a list of recommendations on how to strengthen your contribution:
1. In lines 181–183, 192-194, you have provided statistical data without references. Please provide the source of this data.
2. The manuscript lacks the Discussion part. In the Discussion, you should compare your findings with the previous researches, present the limitations of the research and formulate directions for future research.
Once again, thank you for the opportunity, and I wish you good luck in strengthening the manuscript.
Author Response
Wen Zhong
School of Economics and Management, Jiangxi University of Technology
Ganzhou, Jiangxi Province, China
September 28,2022
Dear Review expert,
It is a great honor to receive your valuable feedback. Your advice is very instructive. The authors have carefully studied and agree with the experts. We make the following modification instructions.
(1) Label the data source issue
Labels the relevant data sources in rows 181-183 and 192-194.
(2) The discussion section is missing
First, in the literature review section of the previous article, the literature comparison was made to obtain the innovation of this paper, and the second is to add a number of discussions in the limitations and future development of the paper.
The above is a description of the changes made, please criticize and correct any inadequacies
Thank you again for reviewing this article.
Sincerely,
Wen Zhong
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
I appreciate your hard work, and I think the paper is okay for publication. Congratulations.
Best,
The reviewer
Author Response
Thanks again to the review experts for their hard work. Thank you for your significant contribution to the improvement of this article, and thank you for your trust and recognition of this article, we will continue to work hard to complete the final work.
Reviewer 2 Report
Publish after revised
Need short description
Focus on showing table, graph, picture
Author Response
Thanks again to the external review experts for their further guidance on the article, we very much agree with the external review opinions. On this basis, the authors condensed the article and revised the tables and charts.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for the corrections.
Author Response
Thanks again to the review experts for their hard work. Thank you for your significant contribution to the improvement of this article, and thank you for your trust and recognition of this article, we will continue to work hard to complete the final work.
