Neoliberal Environmentalism, Climate Interventionism and the Trade-Climate Nexus

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study does a text analysis on 37 key publications by global economic institutions (GEI) on the relationship between international trade and climate issues between 2007 and 2022. Using a three-stage analysis, it is found that the market-based instruments (MBI) has been the strongest normative element in the text corpus. GEI publications have reached a common conclusion that trade liberalization and growth would importantly secure climate protection. This study also argues that MBI-based policies can only help us to mitigate carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions; various interventions from the local to global levels are required to achieve the climate goals.

Here are several major recommendations from me.

First, reorganize and expand section 1 introduction. Introduce what “neoliberal environmentalism” is whenever it is first mentioned. Although more details are provided in section 2, a clear profile of the major focus of the paper ought to be offered from the very beginning. Also, the author should introduce his/her motivation, the method, and the contribution more carefully in section 1.

Second, standardize the citation style. For example, “Stoner (2021:492)” should just be “Stoner (2021)”, “Harvey (2007:22)” should be “Harvey (2007)”. These inconsistent citation styles are found throughout the whole manuscript, so please address them carefully. On page 14, line 685, the missing information in “page xx” should be completed.

Third, many citations are missing and this is an important issue that must be cleared in such a literature review paper. For example, on page 6, the UN Our Common Future report should be included in the References with the website being provided. On the same page, line 281, what does the “Article 3:5” mean? Similarly, other works from the World Bank, WEF, WTO-UNEP, UNCTAD, etc. are cited in text but not in the References. The author should make it explicitly on which 37 GEI publications are being studied.

Last, abbreviations such as WEF, LDC, etc. should be written out the first time they are mentioned in text.

Author Response

I am very grateful for the Reviewer's helpful recommended amendments to the original paper. I have complied with all of these, as detailed below where I have organised the Reviewer's recommendations across six specific points, with my responses below:

1. First, reorganize and expand section 1 introduction. Introduce what “neoliberal environmentalism” is whenever it is first mentioned. Although more details are provided in section 2, a clear profile of the major focus of the paper ought to be offered from the very beginning.

[DONE] Thanks to the reviewer for this very useful advice. I have written a number of additional sentences after when neoliberal environmentalism is first mentioned to define the concept and provide some helpful further explanation that will enable the reader to get a better understanding of it from the very start.

 

2 Also, the author should introduce his/her motivation, the method, and the contribution more carefully in section 1.

[DONE] Thanks again to the reviewer for this helpful advice that will help readers get a better idea of the paper’s content and contribution to the literature in at the start in the Introduction. I have developed these three aspects suggested above in Section 1 (Introduction) significantly.

 

3. Standardize the citation style. For example, “Stoner (2021:492)” should just be “Stoner (2021)”, “Harvey (2007:22)” should be “Harvey (2007)”. These inconsistent citation styles are found throughout the whole manuscript, so please address them carefully.

[DONE] The numbers after the years in such instances above relate to the page number(s) of the cited quotations where they appeared in the text. Taking the reviewer’s advice, I have instead inserted the page numbers of the cited quotations at the end of them, e.g. (page 492).

 

4. On page 14, line 685, the missing information in “page xx” should be completed.

Page xx is actually the page number of the quotation in the report’s Executive Summary section.

 

5. Many citations are missing and this is an important issue that must be cleared in such a literature review paper.

• For example, on page 6, the UN Our Common Future report should be included in the References with the website being provided.
• On the same page, line 281, what does the “Article 3:5” mean?
• Similarly, other works from the World Bank, WEF, WTO-UNEP, UNCTAD, etc. are cited in text but not in the References.
• The author should make it explicitly on which 37 GEI publications are being studied.

[DONE] I have taken action on all the above points made by the reviewer and added and corrected the text accordingly. The GEI publications that form the study’s text corpus are all listed and detailed in Table 1 but I have fully referenced all of them now in the Bibliography.

 

6. Last, abbreviations such as WEF, LDC, etc. should be written out the first time they are mentioned in text.

[DONE] This has now been done, thanks to the reviewer for highlighting this point.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is analyzed very interesting questions. The topic is original and address a specific gap in the field research relationship between international trade and climate issues.

However, it has been improved abstract and introduction, because of lack of clear subject, research objective, hypotheses and expected results.
In abstract and introduction, it has to add the subject, research objectives, hypotheses and expected results.

The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented.
But, in conclusion, it has to add the main contribution and limitations of the study.

The references are appropriate.

The tables and figures are correct and are consistent with the results presented.

Author Response

I am very grateful for the Reviewer's helpful recommended amendments to the original paper. I have complied with all of these, as detailed below where I have organised the Reviewer's recommendations across two specific points, with my responses below:

 

1. However, it has been improved abstract and introduction, because of lack of clear subject, research objective, hypotheses and expected results. In abstract and introduction, it has to add the subject, research objectives, hypotheses and expected results.

[DONE] I am grateful to the reviewer for this helpful suggestion, which I have followed accordingly in the revised version of the paper.

 

2. The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented.

But, in conclusion, it has to add the main contribution and limitations of the study.

[DONE] I am also grateful to the reviewer for this other helpful suggestion, which I have followed accordingly in the revised version of the paper.

I have also gone through the whole paper to improve in other areas of it, this too based on responses to helpful ideas and suggestions provided by the reviewers. I have also corrected some typo mistakes and improved the expression of certain points in text.

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Please work on your writing further. For example, on page 6, line 284, what is the "8developed"? Find some professional proofreader services should be helpful.

2. Table 2 - part B is not found in the text. Please insert it in the right place.

3. Why the results of the third-stage analysis are not presented directly? Table 2 and Figure 1 are both on the second-stage results, but it is my understanding that the third stage reports the final outcomes of this study. I will be curious to see the evidence supporting the author's arguments.

Author Response

I am again very grateful for the Reviewer’s useful comments and observations. Taking each of their points made in turn:

1. Please work on your writing further. For example, on page 6, line 284, what is the "8developed"? Find some professional proofreader services should be helpful.

RESPONSE: There must have been some parts of the revised version text of the paper I wrote in track change mode that I did not delete or add character space to. It can be a messy process using track changes but I have gone over the text again to check such typo errors where I could find them.

 

2. Table 2 - part B is not found in the text. Please insert it in the right place.

RESPONSE: I was actually able to find Part B in the revised version of the paper I received at least at the top of page 14. I did have a discussion with the journal office about ensuring that all Tables and Figures were inserted into the revised version, and from what I have been sent this does appear to have been done.

 

3. Why the results of the third-stage analysis are not presented directly? Table 2 and Figure 1 are both on the second-stage results, but it is my understanding that the third stage reports the final outcomes of this study. I will be curious to see the evidence supporting the author's arguments.

RESPONSE: The third-stage analysis is an in-depth qualitative analysis of the text, thus different from the more quantitative first and second stage text analyses. The results from the third-stage analysis derive from a discursive examination of quoted main indicative arguments, conclusions and recommendations that could be drawn from the selected most prominent GEI publications using the paper’s modelled NE normative element framework. This discursive examination of cited material generated more in-depth findings and insights, and from which the core arguments and conclusions of the paper are developed.

    I have added this further explanation of this third-stage analysis in the Research Methodology to make this clearer for the reader. There is a side comment note in the new revised version to highlight this.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript can be accepted in present (revised) form.

Author Response

Thank you for recommending that the revised manuscript can be accepted in present (revised) form, and for your helpful previous comments in in Round 1 also.