Research on the Impact and Mechanism of Internet Use on the Poverty Vulnerability of Farmers in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper address the question of the impact of Internet usage on poverty vulnerability. The statistical analysis is multivariate to take into account various social conditions which can affect in various degrees the impact of Internet on the famed household income. The paper is well structured and the conclusions rest on solid statistic tools. While I am not en expert of these tools, I take for granted the authors used standard tools to make their estimations. They should however check the Equations as there are mistakes in the use of time index (i.e., t+1 should figure in them, cf. Minor comments). But that should not affect the soundness of the results, which are convincing and follow intuitive logics. 

Major comment:

A short discussion in what sense these results contradict or not the 3 theoretical paths described in Section 2 would be welcomed.

Minor comments:

1. line 27: the problematic of rural poverty is not limited to « modern socialist countries »; I would remove the word « socialist » to make the argument more generic.
2. lines 49 to 53: Please split this long sentence so as to become more understandable. Especially this is the first reference to Internet, and thus this term must be properly introduced.
3. line 68: define the acronym FGLS, and add « s » to model
4. line 70: « by the role Mechanisms to reduce the likelihood « , please explain what you mean by Mechanims. Again, this long sentence (starting at line 66) could be split in 2.
5. line 73: « a preliminary study » —> change to the plural form « preliminary studies »
6. line 74: after « LI », please specify the reference already at the end of the first sentence (or just after the mention of Li).
7. line 75-76: please explain the difference between « multidimensional poverty » and « high-dimensional poverty »
8. line 83: « Based » —> « based »
9. line 89: change « can » to « could »
10. line 101: fluctuations of what?
11. line 108: « into poverty research « , what do you mean by that ?
12. line 114 to 116, commas are missing between the enumerated examples.
13. line 126: is the word « dynamic » necessary here ? I would say no.
14. line 141: at the end of the sentence « … the increase of income », add the reference: Mushi, G.E., Di Marzo Serugendo, G., Burgi, P.-Y. Digital Technology and Services for Sustainable Agriculture in  Tanzania: A Literature Review. Sustainability. 2022,14, 2415. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14042415
15. lines 145 to 151: Please split this long sentence so as to become more understandable. As it is, this sentence has no meaning at all.
16. line 151: after « mode », add a comma so that we understand mode is related to production.
17. line 155: change reference Sabrina to Pabilonia (Sabrina is a surname)
18. line 193: use capital X for xiaoling
19. line 217: could you cite a reference for the 3 main ways to measure poverty vulnerability ?
    Equation (1): I am a little confused as I would have written Vep_i,t+1 = P(ln con_i,t < In poor). Same for Equation (6). Also in line 234 you write ln con_i,t+1 which does not correspond to Equation (1). And you use letter i whereas you use the logarithm in the Equation. Please correct it. By the way, why taking the logarithm ? Any explanation ?
20. line 238: define the OLS acronym (Ordinary Least Squares)
21. line 315: remove the « t » before « in the western »
22. line 339 to 340: Please rewrite the sentence as « households with non-agricultural employment «  appears twice, and « major events » does not mean anything.
23. line 359-360: Could you develop a little bit why the analysis of variables at two different time nodes avoids the influence of reverse causality?
24. line 421: Do you have an explanation why middle income peasant household benefit less that either high or low incomes ? If yes, would ne good to write it either in this section or in section 5.
25. line 446: end of sentence add a question mark « ? »
26. line 450: remove « in the future » as it is obvious (and « future « is already cite in previous sentence).
27. line 459 and 460: add « s » to « mechanism »
28. line 469: Replace « The research further of Zhou «  by « Zhou’s research »
29. line 473: replace « results are shown » by « results show »
30. line 474: replace *Formula » by « Equation »
31. line 498: refer again to the reference: Mushi, G.E., Di Marzo Serugendo, G., Burgi, P.-Y. Digital Technology and Services for Sustainable Agriculture in  Tanzania: A Literature Review. Sustainability. 2022,14, 2415. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14042415
32. line 554: I would rewrite the sentence as: « Further recommandations include the breaking of the traditional thinking of poverty alleviation, giving full play to the Internet plus entrepreneurship, Internet plus agricultural education, Internet plus financial, Internet plus medical, and other fields. The end results are (i) the achievement of sustainable poverty alleviation of rural households, (ii) the empowerment of the role of the Internet in the allocation of information resources in poverty-stricken areas, and (iii) the promotion of the concentration of all kinds of resources to poverty-stricken and vulnerable rural households. »

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Introduction

The chosen topic is germane and novel, however there are number of observations needing attention and adjustment

Observations/Comments

1. First, authors should note the importance of citing appropriately the statistics used even if the writers are the originator of the figures. For instance, between lines 34 and 37, some statistics were provided without providing the reference sources. This is essential to guide readers accordingly in following the line of discourse.
2. Generally, rendering the thoughts in short and simple sentences are more reader-friendly than undue long sentence. For example, lines 37-42, are loaded with a very long sentence; thus, making it confusing. The sentence should be broken down into shorter sentences. The same issue applies to 45-48, 49-53. 
3. Also, authors should watch out for grammatical errors are (lines 49-53). The sentence is unduly long and also not properly constructed grammatically.
4. This is another very long sentence (lines 66-70), that is not clear. This is particularly in the introductory section; readers should be motivated to the study by providing the crux of the study and its uniqueness in simple and clear sentences. 
5. Furthermore, the current last sentence in the introduction should be moved to the methodology. Then a clearly crafted sentence that gives an insight into the paper before a short outline of the paper.
6. In the Literature review (LR) section should include the key concepts in the study and then should conclude with identified gaps in the reviewed literature. This would further revibrate the relevance of the current study.
7. There is also need to include more empirical review (e.g., 2022 & 2021_ in this area especially from the developing/emerging countries and possibly link it to one or two target of the SDGs. This will further bring out the delineation in the study more clearly (e.g., Khan et al, 2022 for Pakistan; Karakara and Osabuohien, 2021 for West Africa; Abdulqadir & Asongu, 2022 for SSA, Nchofoung & Asongu, 2022 from a global perspective, etc).
8. Another area to watch out for is the selection of variables and justification for selection. For instance, the measures of vulnerability are given in the methodology but the source is not provided. 
9. There is somewhat confusion between pages 469 and 471. Thus, the authors should check for grammatical flows, amongst others.
10. Typically, acronyms should be rendered in full at first usage (e.g., FGLS on page 68, etc)
11. There is need to do more to provide proper discussion of the findings of the study. This should include signposting the findings in the light of extant literature by comparing the findings with outcomes of previous studies. Also, the implications of the findings should be provided more clearly.
12. The term ‘Fake R²) used in Table 3, appears strange. What is familiar to this reviewer is Pseudo R² as used in Table 6. This is essential as three kinds of R2 are reported in the paper (Fake R², Pseudo R² and Assumed R²). Thus, someone reading the paper would want to know their difference or if they are the same.  This suspects that this might come from the translation from the first language of the authors to English, which should be looked into seriously.
13. In the current research conclusions, whether the Internet can really play a role in poverty reduction remains to be further discussed explicitly sentence not properly constructed
14. Recommendations should stem from the findings of the study and not what others have done before.
15. Reference lists should also be tidied up and made to follow a uniform referencing style.

 

Suggested cited works

Khan, N., Ray, R.L., Zhang, S., Osabuohien, S. & Ihtisham, M. (2022). Influence of mobile phone and internet technology on income of rural farmers: Evidence from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province, Pakistan. Technology in Society, 68. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.101866

Karakara, A.A. & Osabuohien, E.S. (2021). Threshold Effects of ICT Access and Usage in Burkinabe and Ghanaian Households. Information Technology for Development, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2021.1971148

Abdulqadir I.A.& Asongu S.A. (2022). The Asymmetric Effect of Internet Access on Economic Growth in sub-Saharan Africa. Economic Analysis and Policy, 73, 44 – 61.

Nchofoung T.N.,Asongu S.A (2022). ICT for sustainable development: Global comparative evidence of globalisation thresholds. Telecommunications Policy, 46 (5), June DOI: 10.1016/j.telpol.2021.102296

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors

I reviewed the manuscript entitled “Research on the Impact and Mechanism of Internet Use on the Poverty Vulnerability of Farmers in China” and I believe that it is really an interesting paper.Rural poverty is one of the great obstacles to the construction of a modern socialist country. In the process of exploring and establishing a long-term mechanism for poverty alleviation and sustainable development of poor people, it is necessary to fully realize the fundamental constraints of cultural and cognitive poverty in poor areas caused by information occlusion on the elimination of relative poverty, and then give full play to the important role of the Internet in realizing the lasting poverty alleviation of farmers.This article uses the Chinese family tracking data section in 2018, with expected poverty vulnerability measure method to measure the degree of poverty vulnerability, through FGLS and Probit estimation model for the relationship between Internet use and the effects of poverty vulnerability. The results of this study can be useful in achieving regional SDG goals. Therefore, this study can be an important step in grabbing the attention of policy makers and service providers to the issue of poverty. The manuscript has a great structure and story line. The conclusions are novel and well-supported by the results. However, the are some rooms for further improvements. Please see the below comment:

- Please add one of the most important recommendations/policy implications to the end of Abstract section.

- Please contextualize the research problem in the introduction section. Contextualization should be done with respect to the poverty and vulnerability indicators in China.

- Please explain the main contribution of you research to the body of knowledge in the fields of poverty and vulnerability.

- P5, L 205-207: The authors have mentioned that “The research data in this paper are from the Data of China Family Tracking Survey (CFPS) in 2018. This data is a large-scale, continuous and interdisciplinary data survey project organized by the China Center for Social Sciences Surveys at Peking University.” Couldn't you use the 2021 data?

- Please explain you research design in a separate section. The explanations provided in section 3 do not reflect the research design.

- How did you evaluate the robustness of the model and the results?

- The results section is well elaborated. However, please add a section about the description of the robustness analysis of the results.

- Please try to put your results and recommendation is in an international level. This can be done using discussing your results and comparing them to the results of other researchers.

- Please highlight the main take-home message of you research in the end of conclusion section.

- Please explain the main contributions of your study to the theory and practice of poverty discourse.

- The main limitations of the study should be added to the end of conclusion section.

Good luck

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Based on the data of 2018, this paper confirmed that the use of the Internet can significantly reduce the poverty vulnerability of farmers, tested the robustness using PSM method, and analyzed the impact mechanism of the Internet on poverty vulnerability. It provides a certain theoretical reference for how to carry out anti-poverty in the information age, and the topic selection of the article has a certain academic value. However, there are still the following deficiencies:

1. Whether the data can be updated？The introduction expounds the research significance on the premise thatChinese had been lifted out of poverty, so whether it is possible to update the data to 2020 and beyond.
2. Lines 154-179 describe the influence mechanism in detail, but the last few sentences mention the role of the Internet on enterprises. What is the connection with the theme of this paragraph? Perhaps the author refers to township enterprises or enterprises founded by farmers?
3. Line 317-320, why the influence coefficientof eastern and western regions are significant, the influence coefficientof central region is not significant, and the reasons for the particularity of the central region can be briefly analyzed.
4. Line 324, why is the inverted U-shaped distribution? With the increase of the age of the head of household, the probability of poverty vulnerability of farmers first increases and then decreases. This is inconsistent with the common sense. Middle age is the working age,the head of household in working age may lead to poverty? Why? Author can analyze it briefly.
5. Line 310,"which means that with the increase of poverty level, Internet use has a greater impact on poverty vulnerability of farmers." has some ambiguity. The change in daily consumption from $1.9 to $3.3 is actually an increase in poverty standards, but the poverty level has not increased. Whether it can be changed to: "with the improvement of poverty standards".
6. Lines 417-423, the impact of the Internet us on poverty vulnerability in the $1.9 group is the highest in the low-income farmers, and the impact of the Internet useon poverty vulnerability in the $3.1 group is the highest in the high-income farmers. This difference can be briefly analyzed in the manuscript.
7. Line 443, in the impact mechanismsection, how to measure"income levels", "ability of farmers to obtain information" and "non-agricultural employment"? The manuscript did not explain.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors

The revised version of your article was reviewed. Unfortunately, the response and revised files are quite vague and it seems that you did not address all the comments. Because only four comments (out of my twelve comments) have been answered.

Bests,

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

The revisions were reviewed and in my opinion the article in its current form can be published in the journal.

Bests,