Research on the Impact of Mixed Reform of State-Owned Enterprises on Enterprise Performance—Based on PSM-DID Method

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review on “Research on the impact of mixed reform of state-owned enterprises on enterprise performance - Based on PSM-DID method”

#Sustainability-2159493

 The study, by applying difference-in-differences with score matching method, finds that mixed ownership reform of SOEs leads to the increase in their performance. It further documents that marketization, industry competition, and regional characteristics affect the relationship. Its findings contribute to the literature and provide policy insight. Nevertheless, there are quite a few things that need to be revised. I recommend to revise the followings to improve the quality of the study.

 

1. Literature review

I recommend author to describe more literature review on the mixed reform and the consequences of the reform. Searching prior research is essential to develop the paper’s argument but it is not well presented in its current form. Specifically, it is necessary to specify the following statement “A series of studies showed that the reform of state-owned enterprises can improve corporate profitability and improve corporate performance [3-14].”. Try to explain in detail about the outcomes reported in previous studies (e.g. [3-14]) one by one. Then suggest the different aspect of current paper which might contribute to existing literature.

 

2. Research model

It is necessary to show the robustness of the results. Firstly, try to use other performance measures. For instance, operating performance such as ROA, ROE, or ROI could be used. Second, please show the results from the original data (before the matching procedure). Recent research documents that the result of PSM may affected by design choices (Shipman et al. 2017), thus, showing consistent results using before and after matching sample is required. Third, control variables are not well constructed. Control various factors affecting corporate performance by referring to previous studies.

 

Shipman, J. E., Swanquist, Q. T., & Whited, R. L. (2017). Propensity score matching in accounting research. The Accounting Review, 92(1), 213-244.

 

3. Others

1) More description is needed when explaining the matching procedure. For instance, was the control sample replaced (or without replacement)? Was the matching successful in terms of area under ROC curve?  

2) It is not clear why author use leverage ratio when testing the outcome of mixed ownership reform. Does the leverage ratio directly related to the reform? Or does the leverage ratio intended to decrease (or increase) by the regulatory bodies? Since leverage ratio is a combined measure that captures various aspects of a firm (agency cost, financial constraint, power of creditor and etc.), a more specific explanation is needed as to why this variable should be looked at.

3) Please explain the definition and difference between TFP_op and TFP_lp in the note of each Table. I do not see the reasons why both variables are needed.

4) Several models are presented in each table. However, the interpretations of these models is not well revealed and connected in the body of the paper. For example, as Table 5 has six regression analysis results, specify which part of the manuscript is the explanation for each analysis. One way to increase readability is to classify each model into (1) to (6) and explain it in the text with the model numbers.

5) In Table 2, all the variables have difference sample sizes which is quite strange and less scientific. Please provide the variable descriptive statistics based on the two sample sizes, before matching and after matching.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

First of all, I would like to thank you for the possibility of reviewing this interesting paper that I have read with great interest.

The paper may have a clear interest associated to researchers from different scientific disciplines and, therefore, could have a notable repercussion in specialized scientific literature.

Introduction is well

Just review the Error! Bookmark not defined.

marrying first [Error! Bookmark not defined.] [29]. Second, there are missing variables in 88
the model estimation. For example, the province or industry of the enterprise and the un- 89
observable characteristics of the enterprise may affect the reform decision and perfor- 90
mance of the enterprise at the same time [Error! Bookmark not defined.] [8] [30]. (2) Most 91
of the existing studies only consider the reform of state-owned enterprises into non-state- 92

Please add literature review. The literature review included in the manuscript should serve to synthesize the state of the art in the topic addressed, to describe the main specific contributions made to date, what is the gap that the work tries to fill, how the previous contributions relate to the contribution that is intended to be made in this paper and, if it is the case, who previously suggested the need to make the analysis included in this new study.

I would like to suggest the following references:

Fülöp et al. (2022). Fintech accounting and Industry 4.0: future-proofing or threats to the accounting profession?. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 23(5), 997-1015.

Akram, U et al. (2021). Impact of digitalization on customers’ well-being in the pandemic period: Challenges and opportunities for the retail industry. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(14), 7533.

Difference-in-differences model based on propensity score matching

2. 1. Difference-in-differences model based on propensity score matching -why 2.1. and not just 2???

Is this part of the methodology or is this the literature? Or it is the  proposed model?

3. Variable measurement and sample description

Must be separated to methodology and result

By the statistical part we must have a description. The optimum values and a comparation with the results in the study. After each table and figure pleas add some description

 

4. Empirical Results and Analysis of Mixed Reform of State-owned Enterprises and Enterprise Performance

Balance test of sample matching in 2003 -Why 2003? It’s a little bit old…we are in 2023

After each table and figure pleas add some description.

Conclusions and Recommendations: theoretical, managerial, and practical implications, limitation and further research. Some parts are included but must be extended.

Overall, I believe that the ideas are well expressed, and the storyline is easily followed by the reader. However, in the course of reading the manuscript, I could identify some minor mistakes that should be dealt with more carefully by the authors.

In short, in my opinion, this is a potentially publishable paper that could make a significant contribution to the specialized literature. However, the authors should make an additional effort to solve the problems previously mentioned.

However, I hope that all these comments will serve the author to improve the quality of the paper. Finally, I hope that the comments will be understood positively by the authors of this interesting paper.

Good luck!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks for revising the paper based on the comments. 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

good luck!