The Influences of International Trade on Sustainable Economic Growth: An Economic Policy Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments:

1. It would be great if the authors could highlight the policy implications for this paper.
2. The equations and results in the article need to be adjusted to publication standards. It is now poorly organized and placed. Please find a better way to report equations (5) to (16).
3. Could authors provide the impulse response results?
4. I would suggest the authors “downgrade” the casualty claim. Granger cause is not actual causality. Hence, the causality phrases, such as “the influences of” and “ the effects of”, should not be the paper.
5. Some recent studies show that there exist substantial differences in the consequences of GDP level and GDP growth. The authors may want to articulate this stream of literature in the literature review sections. For instance. Feng, Z. (2021). How Does Local Economy Affect Commercial Property Performance?. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 1-23.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

The authors would like to present our very sincere thanks to you for allowing us to revise and resubmit our manuscript (Sustainability-1512750). We have thoroughly addressed reviewer’s comments to the best of our ability. Based on your constructive suggestions, we have revised and/or rewritten the sections to improve the overall quality of the paper. The manuscript has also been professionally proofread. The changes are highlighted in the revised manuscript for your easy perusal. 

Our study has greatly benefited from your detailed and constructive remarks. We look forward to hearing from you soon.

Best regards,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The introduction is very weak and does not flow the importance of the study in the context of previous literature, that how this makes a unique contribution and to fill the identified gap. So. the content is not succinctly described and contextualized concerning the previous and present theoretical background and empirical research on the topic? So, be more critical in addressing the research gap. What is the contribution of the paper to the literature? Emphasize these aspects already in the literature reviews to make the paper attractive for readers. There is a need to better elaborate the contribution of the work to the existing literature. The reviewer believes that adding the latest available papers to this list will enhance the background of the topic under discussion in the introduction section and also in the literature review section.
2. There is no theoretical background provided for the model and also no explanation provided for the control variables, why these variables are included in the model (you have to back by the references for each explanatory variable included in the model and the expected signs). Should also include the empirical model equation after the theoretical section where all the explanations should be given.
3. The unit of analysis is not clear for all the variables used in the model especially for the GDP, it should be in the Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) or real term adjusted for inflation, and also the base year should be mentioned.
4. Table 1 shows that all the variables are highly correlated, first of all, if the GDP is the dependent variable, then it should come first, then all other independent variables, secondly, imports and exports are highly correlated which leads to a severe econometric problem at the time of estimation, how to tackle this issue, no discussion provided?
5. As mentioned in the paper “This VECM model fails to pass the normality test and heteroscedasticity tests. This failure might be caused by the existence of external events, including outliers, shifts, shocks, and structural breaks, in these time series”. So, in case of structural breaks in the data, all econometrics works is incorrectly used, especially the unit root test (should use any 2nd generation unit root test), and the cointegration technique. In the case of structural breaks, the traditional unit root tests are invalid, so it is better to use the 2nd generation unit root tests (Andrew Zoviot for the detection of a single breakpoint, etc.) to identify the structural breakpoints. Then incorporate this breakpoint at the time of estimations by interacting with the main variable of interest, otherwise, all estimated results are invalid. For all other econometrics issues identified are correct by estimating the model by the ARDL (Auto-Regressive Distributed Lag) technique.
6. Very weak and unconnected Policy Implications provided, it should be concrete according to the empirical results instead of general.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

The authors would like to present our very sincere thanks to you for allowing us to revise and resubmit our manuscript (Sustainability-1512750). We have thoroughly addressed reviewer’s comments to the best of our ability. Based on your constructive suggestions, we have revised and/or rewritten the sections to improve the overall quality of the paper. The manuscript has also been professionally proofread. The changes are highlighted in the revised manuscript for your easy perusal. 

Our study has greatly benefited from your detailed and constructive remarks. We look forward to hearing from you soon.

Best regards,

The authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The main comment # 5 is not addressed and totally ignored "

1. As mentioned in the paper “This VECM model fails to pass the normality test and heteroscedasticity tests. This failure might be caused by the existence of external events, including outliers, shifts, shocks, and structural breaks, in these time series”. So, in case of structural breaks in the data, all econometrics works is incorrectly used, especially the unit root test (should use any 2nd generation unit root test), and the cointegration technique. In the case of structural breaks, the traditional unit root tests are invalid, so it is better to use the 2nd generation unit root tests (Andrew Zoviot for the detection of a single breakpoint, etc.) to identify the structural breakpoints. Then incorporate this breakpoint at the time of estimations by interacting with the main variable of interest, otherwise, all estimated results are invalid. For all other econometrics issues identified are correct by estimating the model by the ARDL (Auto-Regressive Distributed Lag) technique". 

This is the main flaw in this study, you have to address it scientifically, instead of just putting useless tests at the end of the paper. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

The authors would like to present our very sincere thanks to you for allowing us to revise and resubmit our manuscript (Sustainability-1512750). Based on your constructive suggestions, we have revised and/or rewritten the sections to improve the overall quality of the paper. The manuscript has also been professionally proofread. The changes are highlighted in the revised manuscript for your easy perusal. 

Our study has greatly benefited from your detailed and constructive remarks. We look forward to hearing from you soon.

Thank you very much.

Best regards,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Good work, just needs to present your main results of ARDL model (Table #6) in a professional way.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

The authors would like to present our very sincere thanks to you for allowing us to revise and resubmit our manuscript (Sustainability-1512750). Based on your constructive suggestions, the main results of ARDL model (Table #6) have been presented in a professional way. The revised contents were highlighted in green in the paper.

Our study has greatly benefited from your detailed and constructive remarks. We look forward to hearing from you soon.

Thank you very much for your time.

Best regards,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf