The Effect of Labor Reallocation and Economic Growth in China
, Degang Yang 1,2,*, Fuqiang Xia 1, Xinhuan Zhang 1, Jinwei Huo 1, Tianyi Cai 1,2 and Jing Sun 1,2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I find the paper interesting and generally well written. The research opens many thoughts about China's economic performance and the analysis performed by the authors reveals that the news for the Chinese economy is not exactly on a positive note. Unfortunately, I could not "read" the graphs provided by the authors because they are very small and the figures cannot be properly observed. I advise them to change the graphs and resubmit the paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper has a retrospective character. Although discussion is provided, authors are asked to consider forecasts. What predictions for future.
Have they found cycles in the data from the past?
Have they considered the data granularity have impact on analysis results,
Could they increase the volume of sectors in the analysis?
Other specific comments please see the attachment.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Title: The Effect of Labor Reallocation and Economic Growth in China
Manuscript ID: sustainability-1623842-peer-review-v1
This paper establishes an indicator decomposition model to separate out the labor input effect, the labor reallocation effect and the labor productivity effect in China's economic growth rate and to explore their respective contributions to economic growth. However, there are some shortcomings.
- The Introduction Section is relatively vague. It is recommended that part of the literature review be elaborated separately to explain and elaborate the motivation of the study in the Introduction Section so that the reader can understand the significance of the study.
- To be consistent with the logic of the Results Section, some previous literature related to economic growth, the three effects, the three effects and economic growth, or the effects of sectors and labor reallocation could be added. I think it would have been more beneficial if the authors had included them in their study.
- The Results Section is too much of a surface analysis of the data and less of a combination with realistic implications. The WTO is made several mentions in the Results, such as in 4.2.1. I think that in order to enrich it, perhaps this aspect of trade effects could be further described.
- The Conclusion Section needs to be further strengthened. Some interesting findings of the Analysis Section are not reflected in the Section.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper is clear and rather well-written.
I have some comments to improve the paper:
- The abstract is too long and there are too many keywords.
- Do we see real GDP in Figure 1 ?
- Check the references. For example in Section 2, Denison and Syrquin.
- What is the production function in Section 2 ? how many inputs ?
- I would be interesting to open a bit the literature review about economic growth decomposition based on sectors. There are some important missing references (e.g. Walheer B., A multi-sector nonparametric production-frontier analysis of the economic growth and the convergence of the European countries. Pacific Economic Review 21, 498-524.)
- For the sectors, why not using real added values ?
- How you tried another disaggreation of the sectors (Table 2) ?
- Please explain how do you compute the cumulative effect in Figure 4 ?
- Sections 5 and 6 are rather long and should be merged.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I maintain my previous assessment that this is an interesting and well written paper.
Author Response
Thank you for your affirmation of the paper.
Thank you again for your contribution to the manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
This manuscript still has shortcomings in the last review. And the author has not fully improved the shortcomings I have proposed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Previous comments have been solved.
Author Response
Thank you for your affirmation of the paper.
Thank you again for your contribution to the manuscript.
