How Do Overseas Economic and Trade Cooperation Zones along the Belt and Road Affect the Economic Growth of Host Countries?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study examined the impact of overseas economic and trade cooperation zones on the economic growth of host countries using DiD framework. The authors controlled time variant and invariant effects in their estimations. Finally, their findings are supported by the robustness studies. 

However, the introduction and result sections could be improved by citing relevant studies to support/justify their findings/arguments.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment for details.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is essential for Chinese economic policy. Several issues are detected during careful studying of the article.

1.     Some parts of the article are written as a speech for the 10^th anniversary of the One belt, one road initiative. The research study should be rebuilt, particularly the introduction.

2.     The literature review must be structured more precisely. The title of part 2.2, Literature review on economic growth, is too general in the considered context, and the title of 2.3, Literature review, is not adequate to the context (the same as section 2). Does part 2.1 Foreign studies on cooperative zones really refer to foreign studies?

3.     Hypothesis 1 (H1). Overseas economic and trade cooperation zones can promote economic growth in host countries – it is formulated incorrectly and cannot be falsified. The word can is inappropriate in any research hypothesis. Overall it can be removed from the study.

4.     Rows 311-316 – the citation starts in 311, but where does it end? What is the reference for the source?

5.     Rows 323-324 where??,? are the explanatory variables, and? represents the country, and ? represents the year. ?????,? are the explanatory variables – unclear what variables are explanatory. What does precisely Park mean?

6.     Is GDP the right symbol for the national product? (D is for domestic, not for national, it is not the same, please check the definition taken in the study)

7.     Row 352 I did not find table 3.2 below. It seems like it is above line 352.

8.     The reference regression (line 322) should be justified more precisely. Also, the methodology is shown in different sections. It needs more clear step-by-step presentation. The beginning of section 4 is poorly presented.

9.     Reference no 16 is missing

Author Response

Please see the attachment for details.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors modified the paper according to the reviewer's remarks. Thank you. In the first row of table 3.1 there is still "National product per capita", while the authors defined it as GDP (domestic not national)

Author Response

The authors modified the paper according to the reviewer's remarks. Thank you. In the first row of table 3.1 there is still "National product per capita", while the authors defined it as GDP (domestic not national)

respond：Thank you for your review, we have corrected the error.