Evaluation of Common Prosperity Level and Regional Difference Based on the Background of Green Development

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The subject matter is of great interest, but the article needs major revisions.

1. The indication of the research questions and related hypotheses is completely missing: what do you intend to prove? What is the contribution of the article to the current state of research on the topic?

2. Introduction and Literature review: why are green development and common prosperity analyzed together? There is no reference to the concept of sustainability and to the literature on the subject.

3. Methodology: why have some indices been chosen rather than others? The choice of first, second and third level indicators must be adequately motivated and supported by the literature.

4. Analysis and conclusions: the research results must be commented and contextualized; for example, what is the significance of regional differences? Why is it important to conduct the analysis on a regional basis?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Sustainability Academic Review

 

The Article How to Evaluate the Level of Common Prosperity under the Background of Green Development: Evidence from China" is not ready for the publication at this time. There is no reason to publish such an article and there are several typos, as well as lack of international literature that addresses the problem of international public finance for climate change.  

 

First, the theory section is lacking in development. The description of the concepts is not appropriate and why the audience would need to study these topics is also not well described. 

 

Second, the methods used need further definitions.   Entropy weight method (EWM) is a commonly used weighting method that measures value dispersion in decision-making. The problem is that the problem is not defined and so therefore we don't know why we need to know that different regions in China have different levels of "Green Development". It would be better to understand in theory, why GD is less helpful for growth and promotes more economic development which is fair.  At present, it seems that the research is seeking to justify the following: "Only by scientifically assessing the level of common prosperity in various regions of China can we adopt targeted policies to further implement the concept of common prosperity in the process of economic development. "

 

Thrid, the one case study does not present information on policy design to be replicated to other locaitons. Perhaps instead of only focusing on China, and also looking at a more broader literature, the authors could find reasons to have more government analyze why or in which ways does Green Development promote more equity and prosperity in the long run over inequality and growth in the short run. These are bigger questions and could be relevant for the research and applicability to other cases outside of the one case presented here. 

 

There are several errors in the editing. Line 8 and 9 is a run-on sentence.  Line 26, has extra spaces and a large capital within the sentence.  There are additional places, so suggestion would be to include production editor for the review of the text before sending it to review.

Author Response

Please see the attchment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks for your work.

I only point out that the concept of sustainability does not refer only to the environmental dimension, but also to the social and economic dimensions (so-called triple botton line)

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf