A Blessing or a Curse? Highway Connection and the Entry of Polluting Firms in China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
your work is very interesting, as it investigates the impact of the motorway connection on the entry of polluting companies, the heterogeneity, and the channels of influence. However, it needs some improvements before it can be published. Below are some comments:
- On line 169 there is a repetition of the word “are”. Please delete it.
- Explicit the acronym GDP.
- On line 184, (1) I think refers to equation 1. Quote it differently so that it is immediately readable.
- I suggest you follow the structure of the journal (Introduction, Materials & Methods, Results, Conclusions), in which you insert the materials and methods used to develop the study in a single paragraph (Materials and Methods), as it is not clear in table 2 the method used to determine the reported parameters. Learn more about the methods used to develop your work.
- Organize all the results obtained in the Results section.
- Explain figure 1 better and enter the title of the axes.
- In figure 2 insert a legend to improve the visibility of the figure.
- Explain the results in Table 3.
- Indicate the meaning of the parameter φ of equation 1.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We would like to extend our sincere appreciation to you for dedicating time and effort to review our manuscript titled "A Blessing or a Curse? Highway Connection and the Entry of Polluting Firms in China". We highly value the insightful feedback provided, and we have committed to addressing all the comments with utmost sincerity and dedication. All modifications can be reviewed in the tracked-changes version and the main modifications have been marked in yellow.
Please find below our point-to-point response to the comments in bold.
Reviewer 1:
- Comment1：“On line 169 there is a repetition of the word ‘are’. Please delete it.”
This typo has been corrected.
- Comment2：“Explicit the acronym GDP.”
We have spelled out the full form of GDP when it first appeared (line 127) and added the explanation for it on line 189 and line 190.
- Comment3： “On line 184, (1) I think refers to equation 1. Quote it differently so that it is immediately readable.”
We have made this quotation more readable.
- Comment4：“I suggest you follow the structure of the journal (Introduction, Materials & Methods, Results, Conclusions), in which you insert the materials and methods used to develop the study in a single paragraph (Materials and Methods), as it is not clear in table 2 the method used to determine the reported parameters. Learn more about the methods used to develop your work.”
Thank you for this suggestion. We have added a more detailed explanation about how results in table 2 are achieved before presenting table 2.
- Comment5：“Organize all the results obtained in the Results section.”
We have added a section summarizing the results in the conclusion on line 436-445.
- Comment6：“Explain figure 1 better and enter the title of the axes.”
The revised manuscript has supplemented the vertical axes and the horizontal axes and named them, which can be found from line 229 to line 237, and we provided further explanation for Figure 1, so that readers can immediately understand why the results satisfy the parallel trend hypothesis.
7.Comment 7：“In figure 2 insert a legend to improve the visibility of the figure.”
We inserted a legend to improve the visibility of the figure.
- Comment8：“Explain the results in Table 3.”
We explained the results of the winsorization further from line 272 to line 274.
- Comment9：“Indicate the meaning of the parameter φ of equation 1.”
We have added the meaning of the parameter φ of equation (1) from line 184 to line 186.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study is interesting, here are some points to consider:
1- First, the abstract must begin by stating the aim of the study and not delve into the methodology directly.
2- There is no theoretical framework or literature review, why?
3- The study period must be justified, as it extends from 1998 to 2012. This is an old period of time. What will we benefit from your study of that period?
4- The paper mentions using multiple datasets, it's important to critically evaluate the quality and reliability of each source. For instance, while government reports and official documents can provide valuable information, they may also be subject to bias or manipulation. Additionally, relying solely on keyword frequencies from government reports to proxy local governments’ concerns may oversimplify complex social and economic dynamics.
5- The decision to exclude 15 prefectures that already had highway connections in 1998 could introduce bias into the analysis. It's important to justify why these prefectures were excluded and how their exclusion may impact the results.
6- The method of writing conclusions is backward and must be rewritten in a professional academic manner so that the results of the study include briefly the effects of the theoretical and practical study, then the limitations of the study and avenues for future research.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of English language required
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We would like to extend our sincere appreciation to you for dedicating time and effort to review our manuscript titled "A Blessing or a Curse? Highway Connection and the Entry of Polluting Firms in China". We highly value the insightful feedback provided, and we have committed to addressing all the comments with utmost sincerity and dedication. All modifications can be reviewed in the tracked-changes version and the main modifications have been marked in yellow.
Please find below our point-to-point response to the comments in bold.
- Comment1： “First, the abstract must begin by stating the aim of the study and not delve into the methodology directly.”
We greatly appreciate the reviewer's comment. We have rewritten the start of the abstract accordingly.
- Comment2： “There is no theoretical framework or literature review, why?”
We have added the theoretical framework and a relevant paper in this regard in line 52.
- Comment3： “The study period must be justified, as it extends from 1998 to 2012. This is an old period of time. What will we benefit from your study of that period?”
The sample time period is limited to this interval, mainly based on the following considerations: first, the main data source is the annual survey of industrial firms (ASIF), but due to the limitations of updating the ASIF, the data only extends to 2014, while the data for 2014 is widely criticized for not being accurate. Second, after the data cleaning process, we discover that there were many missing data in control variables at the prefecture level city level in 2013. Hence, the sample period was from 1998 to 2012. We have added an explanation about the data limitation in line 168-173.
- Comment4： “The paper mentions using multiple datasets, it's important to critically evaluate the quality and reliability of each source. For instance, while government reports and official documents can provide valuable information, they may also be subject to bias or manipulation. Additionally, relying solely on keyword frequencies from government reports to proxy local governments’ concerns may oversimplify complex social and economic dynamics.”
The use of the government reports database in this study is predicated on the recognition that these reports provide a structured blueprint for the lawful enactment and implementation of decisions and resolutions by governmental bodies.
First, serving as a cornerstone document for governance, the reports' data is verifiably reliable and possesses substantial directive relevance for the strategic advancement of businesses and local government reports generally occur at the beginning of the year, while economic activities run through the entire year, which can effectively avoid the impact of "reverse causality" on the results. Prior research has often relied on quantitative metrics such as the employment figures for environmental protection staff and the financial outlay for research and development in environmental pollution mitigation. These indicators, while informative, could be inherently related to the caliber of economic advancement, presenting a potential for endogeneity bias in analytical assessments. Secondly, the analysis of the frequency of targeted environmental terminology within government reports enables a more expansive and integrative appraisal of the government's approach to environmental governance, rather than only reflecting a fractional view of the government's environmental policy initiatives. It can be seen from this that the method transcends the limitations of previous studies by offering a more detailed and comprehensive snapshot of the breadth of governmental policy on the environment, thereby enhancing the robustness of policy implications derived from the research. Therefore, it is widely used in literature, such as Chen S. et al. (2018, Economic Research) and Chen Z. et al. (2016, National Bureau of economic research), and so on.
- Comment5： “The decision to exclude 15 prefectures that already had highway connections in 1998 could introduce bias into the analysis. It's important to justify why these prefectures were excluded and how their exclusion may impact the results.”
We greatly appreciate the reviewer's questions regarding the content of the manuscript. Our study uses the DID method, which is a popular method in econometrics to evaluate the effect of an outside shock, by comparing the performance of the treatment group and the control group. The spirit of this method requires that the shock should occur during the sample period, since otherwise it is impossible to estimate the policy’s true impact. We have added a footnote which explains this issue in detail.
- Comment6： “The method of writing conclusions is backward and must be rewritten in a professional academic manner so that the results of the study include briefly the effects of the theoretical and practical study, then the limitations of the study and avenues for future research.”
Following your suggestion, we have streamlined the conclusion to facilitate rapid comprehension for readers, and have made structural refinements to elucidate its theoretical and practical implications more clearly.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors‘since 1998, construction of the national highway network has grown rapidly, including national projects like the "five vertical and seven horizontal" national highway trunk lines, and the "7918" national highway network consisting of 7 capital radial lines, 9 north-south vertical lines and 18 east-west horizontal lines’ – needs substantiation. Why mentioning 1998? Also needs substantiation: ‘In 2003, the central government of China made an official statement that economic development should consider the cost on the environment and the efficient usage of energy resources. This point was emphasized again in 2006 when the eleventh five-year plan was announced. To align local governments’ incentive with that of the central government on the issue of environmental protection, in 2007, the state council of China proposed the one-vote veto environmental pollution assessment of local leaders’ performance.’ ‘of the improvement’, ‘He et al.(2020) find’ – check for extra or no spaces. ‘(Holtz-Eakin and Schwartz,1995; Chandra and Thompson, 2000; Baum-Snow,2007; Duranton and Turner, 2012; Jaworski and Kitchens, 2016; Ahlfeldt et al., 2018; Asher and Novosad, 2020; Donaldson and Hornbeck,2020; Allen and Arkolakis, 2022)’ – what particular economic consequences? ‘Transportation infrastructure improvement can change the relative importance of concentration (market size and agglomeration economy) and decentralization (factor cost and competition), and change the location choice behavior of enterprises (Greenhut, 1963; Venables, 1996; Krugman, 1991; Puga, 1999)’ – develop on the specific contribution of each source. ‘We combine three data sets from 1998 to 2012’ – why only such old data? The figures and tables require more explanations. ‘Since Boarnet (1997) finds that a significant negative spillover effect of highway construction among counties competing for production factors, highway connection of a prefecture on provincial boundaries may hamper the chance for its adjacent prefectures that are also on provincial boundaries to be connected to the highway network.’ – poorly constructed. Avoid footnotes. A Discussion section is needed. Why numbering the reference list that is not properly edited? Too many old sources.
‘Since Boarnet (1997) finds that a significant negative spillover effect of highway construction among counties competing for production factors, highway connection of a prefecture on provincial boundaries may hamper the chance for its adjacent prefectures that are also on provincial boundaries to be connected to the highway network.’ – poorly constructed.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We would like to extend our sincere appreciation to you for dedicating time and effort to review our manuscript titled "A Blessing or a Curse? Highway Connection and the Entry of Polluting Firms in China". We highly value the insightful feedback provided, and we have committed to addressing all the comments with utmost sincerity and dedication. All modifications can be reviewed in the tracked-changes version and the main modifications have been marked in yellow.
Please find below our point-to-point response to the comments in bold.
- Comment1： “ ‘since 1998, construction of the national highway network has grown rapidly, including national projects like the "five vertical and seven horizontal" national highway trunk lines, and the "7918" national highway network consisting of 7 capital radial lines, 9 north-south vertical lines and 18 east-west horizontal lines’ – needs substantiation. Why mentioning 1998? Also needs substantiation:”
Since the 1990s, China's transportation infrastructure construction has been on a large scale and developing rapidly. Starting from 1998, it entered the accelerated construction phase, which was also to cope with the Asian financial crisis, which is why 1998 was mentioned. In the planning, the main trunk road of China, which was mainly completed from 1998 to 2007, is an important landmark event in the history of transportation infrastructure construction in China. This provides rich practical materials for scientifically quantifying the impact of transportation infrastructure construction on the economy and society, and on this basis, the national highway network plan is proposed, which is referred to as the "7918 Network".
We have added a footnote explaining that 1998 was the beginning year of massive construction of transportation infrastructure.
- Comment2： “ ‘(Holtz-Eakin and Schwartz,1995; Chandra and Thompson, 2000; Baum-Snow,2007; Duranton and Turner, 2012; Jaworski and Kitchens, 2016; Ahlfeldt et al., 2018; Asher and Novosad, 2020; Donaldson and Hornbeck,2020; Allen and Arkolakis, 2022)’ – what particular economic consequences?”
We have added some keywords from the literature according to reviewer’s advice.
- Comment3： “‘Transportation infrastructure improvement can change the relative importance of concentration (market size and agglomeration economy) and decentralization (factor cost and competition), and change the location choice behavior of enterprises (Greenhut, 1963; Venables, 1996; Krugman, 1991; Puga, 1999)’ – develop on the specific contribution of each source. ‘We combine three data sets from 1998 to 2012’ – why only such old data? The figures and tables require more explanations.”
First, we have carefully reviewed and enriched relevant literature on the impact of transportation infrastructure on enterprise site selection on line 87-88.
Second, the sample time period is limited to 1998-2012, mainly based on the following considerations: first, the main data source is the annual survey of industrial firms (ASIF), but due to the limitations of updating the ASIF, the data only extends to 2014, while the data for 2014 is widely criticized for not being accurate. Second, after the data cleaning process, we discover that there were many missing data in control variables at the prefecture level city level in 2013. Hence, the sample period was from 1998 to 2012. We have added an explanation about the data limitation in line 168-173.
Finally, we have further enriched the tables interpretation of the regression results and highlighted them in the revised manuscript.
- Comment4： “Since Boarnet (1997) finds that a significant negative spillover effect of highway construction among counties competing for production factors, highway connection of a prefecture on provincial boundaries may hamper the chance for its adjacent prefectures that are also on provincial boundaries to be connected to the highway network.’ – poorly constructed. Avoid footnotes. A Discussion section is needed. Why numbering the reference list that is not properly edited? Too many old sources.”
We greatly appreciate the reviewer's comment on the content of the paper. The connection of highway has varying degrees of impact on the entry of polluting enterprises due to whether they are within the provincial boundary. Based on the reviewer's suggestions, we deleted the irrelevant literature first and further discussed the phenomena and impact explained by the regression results on line 327-336 and added explanation for the particularity of provincial boundary pollution on line 300-303.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have responded to all previous comments. Before you can proceed with publishing, please fix the error that appears on line 199 (Error! Reference source not found.)
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have reviewed the paper and am pleased to report that the authors have made significant improvements. The revisions have notably enhanced the quality and clarity of the manuscript. Consequently, I am pleased to recommend its acceptance for publication.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPublishable.
