Do City Exports Increase City Wages? Empirical Evidence from 286 Chinese Cities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Title:Does city exports increase city wages? Empirical evidence from 286 Chinese cities

There are some comments with this script:

Commet1:Why is the data used from 2009 to 2013 with a certain degree of lag? Is there a lack of timeliness? Can it be improved?

Commet2:In “3.1.1 Baseline estimation model ??????_ct = ?₀ + ?₁ ???????_ct + ?₂??_ct + ?_ct” What does c and t stand for?

Commet3: “In 5.1 Location heterogeneitythe impact of city exports on the wages of western cities is not significant” The impact of exports from western cities on wages in the west is not significant, can it be explained by the U-shaped relationship between export trade and wage levels, and the wages in the west are in the first half of the U-shape? If you can suggest adding.

Commet4:In 4.1 How the author came to “city exports increase city wages by increasing GDP”?

Commet5: “An in-depth study using a quasi-experiment method would be conducted in the future”. What methods are included and whether they can be used in this study

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper presents a clear overall aim with a comprehensive description of the specific objectives, the requirements and how to address them within the study. The specific objectives are clearly set out and the overall feasibility of the work is convincingly addressed. The objectives are above the state of the art. The scope of the article makes sure that the overall and the specific objectives are achievable. The strategy to advance beyond the state of the art is well detailed. The innovation aspects are beyond the state of the art that is properly evaluated in the paper to frame the expected results but in section 5 concerning the heterogenity analysis the table 5: location estimation heterogenity results and the table 6: scale heterogenty estimation results are only moderately discussed and should be better explained to clarify the final conclusion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper shows a well-structured presentation of the topic, state of the art and hypothesis statements. It is valuable the method of calculus employed, processing numerous data and synthesizing them in tables. However, the results driven by the method are fairly explained or analysed, neither considering their importance, pertinence and explaining possible anomalies. Therefore, it is had to interpretate the innovation that this research represents.

In general, the figures included are not well-explained. It is unclear what does Figure 1 represents (magnitudes, method) and the sources used. There is a lack of references to literature regarding urban and geographical terminology used in the study. The concepts of eastern-central-western cities must be explained and referring to more precise geographical contexts and/or criteria used for this classification. The same occurs with large-medium-small cities.

In this sense, the study seems too limited to the Chinese reality and authors. It is recommendable to enlarge the horizons of references and to identify the possibilities of exporting this research. This could provide more clues and possibility to achieve a contribution useful for researchers in other contexts.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The theme of the manuscript is appropriate.

However, it has a long way to go before it is accepted for publication.

1. Subject: In the introduction, references are not consistently referenced. Figure 1 is incomplete, and it is not necessary, not being important to understand the theme

2. The bibliography must be updated with bibliographic sources from the last years (2018-2022)

3. Methodology: This topic needs to be clarified, and this part could be presented in more detail, which would greatly enrich the article.

4. Tables - I suggest that the authors present the meaning of the abbreviations used in the article.

5. The figures presented must be improved

6. The discussion and conclusion should also be enhanced with personal ideas

Overall, it's a good study idea, but it needs to be improved with personal approaches.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Accept in present form

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors：Accept in present form

Reviewer 3 Report

Little revision has been carried. 

In general, the figures included are still not well-explained. The results driven by the method keep to be fairly explained or analysed, neither considering their importance, pertinence and explaining possible anomalies. Therefore, it is had to interpretate the innovation that this research represents. the study seems too limited to the Chinese reality and authors. It is recommendable to enlarge the horizons of references and to identify the possibilities of exporting this research. This could provide more clues and possibility to achieve a contribution useful for researchers in other contexts.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors doesn't  improved some methodological aspects. In results the same text maintained.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

The revisions have taken in consideration the suggestions proposed and the article is suitable for publication.