The Impact of Financial Resilience and Steady Growth on High-Quality Economic Development—Based on a Heterogeneous Intermediary Effect Analysis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to read the paper. It is an interesting toping and I consider it fits to the journal. The article reports on a very interesting study that may reach large audiences. The article is very well organized, in conceptual and methodological terms, and presents very relevant results. The research question is clearly stated. The theoretical framework is creative. The research question is explored in a way that is new, creative and important to the discipline. The methodology is clearly explained. The study conclusions supported are by the analysis.
The authors defined 3 hypotheses.
H 1: Financial resilience will promote high-quality economic development.
H 2: Steady growth can provide an essential foundation and environment for high-quality economic development.
H 3: Steady growth plays an intermediary role in the process of financial resilience promoting high quality economic development.
To analyze the impact of financial resilience on high-quality economic development, the authors built a model of intermediate effect.
The relevant data are mainly from the China Statistical Yearbook and China Stock Market & Accounting Research (CSMAR) database.
To measure each index, the authors used the entropy weight method.
The authors defined two categories of indicators:
- Indicators system for high-quality economic development: Innovative development, Coordinated development, ECO development, Open development, Shared development
- Indicators system for financial resilience: Defence resistance, Adaptive resilience, Transfer learning ability
The bibliography is up to date.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: Thank you for the opportunity to read the paper. It is an interesting toping and I consider it fits to the journal. The article reports on a very interesting study that may reach large audiences. The article is very well organized, in conceptual and methodological terms, and presents very relevant results. The research question is clearly stated. The theoretical framework is creative. The research question is explored in a way that is new, creative and important to the discipline. The methodology is clearly explained. The study conclusions supported are by the analysis.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your suggestions.
Reviewer 2 Report
I think this paper is interesting. I have just one main suggestion. The authors should discuss other work that shows different types of finance may have differential impacts on growth. Perhaps future work could examine the resilience and stability of different sources of finance and its impact on growth. For example, there is work on topic with different types of bank debt
§ Berger, Allen, Sadok El Ghoul, Omrane Guedhami, & Jiarui (Jerry) Guo, 2021. "Corporate Capital Structure and Firm Value: International Evidence on the Special Roles of Bank Debt" Review of Corporate Finance 1 (1-2), 1-41 http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/114.00000001.
More generally see https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C10&q=finance+resilience+stability+growth+&btnG=
I hope these comments are helpful
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: I think this paper is interesting. I have just one main suggestion. The authors should discuss other work that shows different types of finance may have differential impacts on growth. Perhaps future work could examine the resilience and stability of different sources of finance and its impact on growth. For example, there is work on topic with different types of bank debt§Berger, Allen, Sadok El Ghoul, Omrane Guedhami, & Jiarui (Jerry) Guo, 2021. "Corporate Capital Structure and Firm Value: International Evidence on the Special Roles of Bank Debt" Review of Corporate Finance 1 (1-2), 1-41 http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/114.00000001. More generally see https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C10&q=finance+resilience+stability+growth+&btnG=.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We have cited the above reference (i.e., Reference [26]). We also have discussed the impact of different types of finance on economic growth in Section 2.1 (yellow highlighted region from line 147 to line 155).
Reviewer 3 Report
The topic is very interesting and very current with a transition into high quality (over quantity) growth an important policy target. I like that the authors include ideas such as ”self-learning and reform” (line 142) as this is clearly a complex issue involving multiple factors. The analysis that the author do is interesting.
1) The variables in the equations needs to be more clearly defined (some definitions should be further expanded). I think that I understand which variables are been used but they need to be properly defined.
2) The authors select 31 cities. It needs to be explained why they have chosen these4 31 cities and some comments on how representative are these cities of the overall. Some city level Chinese data collects information from 70 cities (probably not data available to cover all these 70 cities but some qualitative explanation should be added.
3) The author mention: “We divide the provinces in the sample into eastern, central, and western regions ac- 408 cording to the traditional division method”. Maybe would be a good idea to mention why the western region was not subdivided into north-west and south-west subregions. These two subregions are also very different from an economic pint of view (some qualitative explanation would be enough)
4) I would suggest avowing long names in the equations such as “InConsumption” (equation 1). I think that this can be presented in a cleaner way.
5) There are some typos like “high-quality” in table 3. It should be capitalized “High-quality”. In the same table “Observation” should be “Observations”.
6) Similar typo on table 8 “rational structure” (should be capitalized).
7) Line 394. There should be a space in “δtrepresents” as well as in “ε3itrepresents”.
8) I think that there should be some comments in the limitations of the analysis and some mention to potential future work
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Point 1: The variables in the equations needs to be more clearly defined (some definitions should be further expanded). I think that I understand which variables are been used but they need to be properly defined.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We have added some detailed explanations of variables in Section 3.2 (yellow highlighted region from line 304 to line 329).
Point 2: The authors select 31 cities. It needs to be explained why they have chosen these4 31 cities and some comments on how representative are these cities of the overall. Some city level Chinese data collects information from 70 cities (probably not data available to cover all these 70 cities but some qualitative explanation should be added.
Response 2: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We have added relevant explanations for selecting 31 provinces in Section 3.2 (yellow highlighted region from line 273 to line 277).
Point 3: The author mention: “We divide the provinces in the sample into eastern, central, and western regions ac- 408 cording to the traditional division method”. Maybe would be a good idea to mention why the western region was not subdivided into north-west and south-west subregions. These two subregions are also very different from an economic pint of view (some qualitative explanation would be enough) .
Response 3: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We have added some descriptions to explain the problem of regional division in Section 4.3.1 (yellow highlighted region).
Point 4: I would suggest avowing long names in the equations such as “InConsumption” (equation 1). I think that this can be presented in a cleaner way.
Response 4: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We have corrected the abbreviation problem in all equations.
Point 5: There are some typos like “high-quality” in table 3. It should be capitalized “High-quality”. In the same table “Observation” should be “Observations”.
.
Response 5: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We have corrected some typos in Table 3.
Point 6: Similar typo on table 8 “rational structure” (should be capitalized).
Response 6: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We have corrected some typos in Table 8.
Point 7: Line 394. There should be a space in “δtrepresents” as well as in “ε3itrepresents”.
Response 7: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We have corrected this format problem.
Point 8: I think that there should be some comments in the limitations of the analysis and some mention to potential future work.
Response 8: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We have added some limitation analysis and the discussion of further work in Section 6 (yellow highlighted region).
Reviewer 4 Report
In general, the presented article is very well structured, the results are presented concisely and clearly, and the econometric model used for evaluation is adequate. Minor remarks include the following:
1. expand the literature review;
2. additionally present the research method in the form of an algorithm with steps that can be understood by a wide range of researchers. Also, such an algorithm would contribute to better reproducibility of the study, but on the example of other countries and regions.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 4 Comments
Point 1: Expand the literature review.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We have added some literature review in Section 2 (yellow highlighted region). We have also cited some references (i.e., References [26]、[27] 、[28]、[33]、[34] and [35]) accordingly.
Point 2: Additionally present the research method in the form of an algorithm with steps that can be understood by a wide range of researchers. Also, such an algorithm would contribute to better reproducibility of the study, but on the example of other countries and regions.
Response 2: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We have added Figure 2 and the step description of the algorithm in Section 3.1 (yellow highlighted region). We also have added some further discussion of this algorithm in other countries in Section 6 (yellow highlighted region).
Reviewer 5 Report
Dear/s Author/s,
Re: Manuscript “The Impact of Financial Resilience and Steady Growth on High-quality Economic Development——Based on the Hetero-geneous Intermediary Effect Analysis”
Reviewer’s report:
The objective of the paper is interesting, since it deals with the conversion of the growth of economies towards quality, which is key to making them more sustainable and competitive over time. The article is well written and the case is well justified, but to consider the paper publishable, the authors must make the following modifications:
- The abstract does not expose any of the methodology used. In this section, in general, little of the used is explained.
- There is no discussion with the theory with which the hypotheses have been constructed. This should be reviewed to highlight the real contribution of the authors.
- The conclusions cannot be limited to being a summary of the results and some recommendations for the government. There must be a preliminary discussion as stated above and then present some brief conclusions. If you want to provide recommendations, you can use a different section.
Best regards
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 5 Comments
Point 1: The abstract does not expose any of the methodology used. In this section, in general, little of the used is explained.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We have added some explanations of the methodology in the abstract section (yellow highlighted region).
Point 2: There is no discussion with the theory with which the hypotheses have been constructed. This should be reviewed to highlight the real contribution of the authors.
Response 2: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We have added some discussion in term of hypothesis theory in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 (yellow highlighted region).
Point 3: The conclusions cannot be limited to being a summary of the results and some recommendations for the government. There must be a preliminary discussion as stated above and then present some brief conclusions. If you want to provide recommendations, you can use a different section.
Response 3: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We have rearranged the Section 5 and added some brief conclusions in Section 5.1 (yellow highlighted region).
