Land Certificated Program and Farmland “Stickiness” of Rural Labor: Based on the Perspective of Land Production Function

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is very interesting and scientifically relevant for the field of the magazine. The scientific utility is great, both for the academic environment and for the authorities. It is worth continuing the approach, by updating the data and analyzing the impact of the current global grain crisis.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

Thank you for your letter and comments concerning our manuscript entitled "Land Certificated Program and Farmland “Stickiness” of Rural Labor: Based on the Perspective of Land Production Function" (land-1846659).

The comments were valuable for improving our manuscript and guiding our research. We have studied the comments carefully and have made revisions accordingly. We hope that the revisions meet with your approval and please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This article focuses on the Land Certificated Program (LCP) in China, and the effects it has on continuing participation in agriculture. It is based on an elaborate statistical analysis of primary data, and could contribute to evidence-based policy making in the important arena of farmland privatization through providing formal land titles. While the focus is on China, this issue is also important across the Global South where land rights are often determined by community rather than in legal terms.

While the article is well organized and well written overall, some issues need to be considered in terms of revising the article.

-- Since 'stickiness' [of land or labor?] and land production function are key terms, it would be useful if a clear definition was provided in the Introduction. While the definitions are provided on lines 47-50 [also lines 270-274, 34-35, 630-632], it would be useful if these are clarified further right at the beginning.

-- The Introduction mentions 'regular and irregular adjustments' [line 58]. This needs to be defined.

-- Research questions are mentioned on lines 85-86. 'Will the LCP enhance or weaken the land “stickiness” of rural labor?' seems a valid question, but the second question, 'How to affect the land “stickiness” of rural labor?' seems vague. This needs to be better articulated.

-- This sentence is unclear: 'Second, based on the perspective of land production function, we going to theoretical analysis and empirical test of the property rights exclusion effect and property right incentive effect of the LCP on land production function, and then affect mechanism of the land “stickiness” of rural labor.' [lines 94-97] Please clarify this.

-- It would be useful if further details are provided on the LCP, either in the Introduction or Methods [Section 4]. Some description of LCP implementation is provided under Variables on lines 275-288, but this is probably not the best place to mention this.

It would also be useful to know if there were/are other land rights programs before, or alongside, LCP.

This article seems to assume that land rights is a universal good, but some mention of the problem with assigning private land rights could also be mentioned in description of LCP. This is not the same as problems with the LCP [lines 587-605], but more broadly about the land expropriation that often follows the issuance of private land rights.

-- This sentence is unclear: 'The release effect of LCP on rural labor has heterogeneity in the endowment of farmers, and the increase in non-agricultural labor cannot simply infer the decrease in agricultural labor.' [lines 137-139] Please clarify this.

-- The article mentions 'operation subjects' and 'operation scales' in some places. These terms need to be defined. While some mention is made on line 535, it is not clear if 'scale' refers to  size of landholding or agricultural income?

-- In terms of 'Theoretical Framework' [Section 3], the difference between 'property right exclusion' and 'property rights incentive' is not clear. In fact, Sections 3.1 and 3.2 seem very similar in how they are written. Figure 2 is not mentioned in the Results or Conclusion, so its value is not clear. Do lines 703-707 refer to this theoretical framework?

-- In Section 4.1 (Data), it is not clear if data from 2016 or data from 2018 are being utilized? Are both sets of data being combined to build a larger sample? How does using two different years potentially impact the results?

This sentence especially needs to be explained further: 'Since the CLDS2018 household samples are all new samples, this paper uses two rounds of surveys consisting of mixed cross-sectional data from 2016 and 2018 for empirical analysis according to research needs.' [lines 244-246]

-- In terms of Variables (Section 4.2), is the independent variable LCP or participation in LCP [receipt of land certificate, lines 298-301]?

Control variables need to be discussed one by one, in terms of where they are obtained from, how they are calculated, why they are useful in terms of this study on rural land rights, and what previous studies have shown in terms of their significance.

 It is mentioned that control variables are divided into individual characteristics, household characteristics, and village characteristics. It would be useful if this broad categorization was listed more clearly in the text, and also mentioned in the various Tables.

Why is both age and age squared being utilized?

In Table 1, it would be useful to get some more detail on the data (e.g. range of data, number in each category if binary variable)?

Have the variables been checked for multicollinearity?

-- The term 'ATT' [lines 372-373] is used throughout the article. It would be useful if it is defined in some more detail, and if the full form is used in other sections, especially for the first time the terms appears in a section.

-- Lines 478-484 comprise one long sentence. It would be useful in terms of reading ease to divide this into shorter sentences, and maybe make this a separate paragraph.

-- Why is kernel matching not mentioned in Table 6? [p.15]

-- This sentence can be deleted? 'Finally, due to the laziness and delay of village cadres and the low efficiency of local government, the certificate issuance work is not implemented properly.' [lines 603-605] 'Laziness' is not being measured by the article, so this sentence is speculation. The three problems mentioned above this are adequate.

-- Does the third policy implication emerge from the study results? [lines 693-702]

-- The limitation mentioned in lines 703-707 needs to be clarified further.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

Thank you for your letter and comments concerning our manuscript entitled "Land Certificated Program and Farmland “Stickiness” of Rural Labor: Based on the Perspective of Land Production Function" (land-1846659).

The comments were valuable for improving our manuscript and guiding our research. We have studied the comments carefully and have made revisions accordingly. We hope that the revisions meet with your approval and please see the attachment.

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is poorly written. Statements such as  a robustness test "proving" something are inappropriate.  Would geospatial analysis be useful since not all land quality is homogeneous.  

The soundness of the sample is unclear. Is there selectivity bias?

Much work remains to be done.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

Thank you for your letter and comments concerning our manuscript entitled "Land Certificated Program and Farmland “Stickiness” of Rural Labor: Based on the Perspective of Land Production Function" (land-1846659).

The comments were valuable for improving our manuscript and guiding our research. We have studied the comments carefully and have made revisions accordingly. We hope that the revisions meet with your approval and please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

This is a very interesting paper. However, before publication the Authors should improve the paper.

1. What were the reasons to choose such variable? How about variables having small changes, coefficient of variation? What were the criteria of choosing describes variables?

2. Are there any literature positions describing variables? Are there other authors describing such research?

3. Please define clearly aim and research hypothesis. 

4. Is the research scietifically important and describes in international literature?

5.  What are the research questions?

6. The paper does not include discussion section before conclusion.

7. Use more international literature. The problem of land has been widely described in international literature.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

Thank you for your letter and comments concerning our manuscript entitled "Land Certificated Program and Farmland “Stickiness” of Rural Labor: Based on the Perspective of Land Production Function" (land-1846659).

The comments were valuable for improving our manuscript and guiding our research. We have studied the comments carefully and have made revisions accordingly. We hope that the revisions meet with your approval and please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for revising the paper.

A few more aspects of the paper could be revised.

-- The language/grammar has to be improved throughout (for instance, the Introduction and Discussion sections). Please edit the manuscript carefully, since the value of this study may be affected due to language issues.

-- In the keywords [lines 30-31], please delete the terms 'policy effect' and 'mechanism.' Maybe 'property rights' and 'agricultural policy' can be added as keywords?

-- In Section 3 [theoretical framework], the meaning of the terms 'property rights exclusivity' and 'property rights incentive' are still not clear to me.

Is property rights exclusivity 'exclusivity to contractual rights in farmland' [lines 233-234]? This could be mentioned at the beginning of Section 3.1.

Is property rights incentive 'residual claims to farmland returns' [lines 266-267]? This too can be mentioned at the beginning of Section 3.2.

-- In Section 3, the paragraph comprised by lines 273-280 is not clear. Please revise or delete this paragraph?

-- Consider this sentence in Section 4 [lines 340-342]: 'Compared with females, males have more physical strength in engaging in agricultural production. It is therefore expected that males are more inclined to engaged in agricultural production.'

This sentence should be revised. Instead of a biological reason, a cultural reason maybe more appropriate? For instance, 'Males are more inclined to engage in agricultural production because of their greater control over farmland in a cultural context which favors men's land ownership.'

-- It is mentioned that: 'It should be noted that this paper treats total family income logarithmically.' [lines 364-365] Please provide a reason for why this was done.

-- Section 5 should be titled 'Analysis and Results'?

-- Sentences should not begin with 'Because'? Please try and see if this can be changed throughout the paper.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

Thank you for your letter and comments concerning our manuscript entitled "Land Certificated Program and Farmland “Stickiness” of Rural Labor: Based on the Perspective of Land Production Function" (land-1846659).

The comments were valuable for improving our manuscript and guiding our research. We have studied the comments carefully and have made revisions accordingly. We hope that the revisions meet with your approval and please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Much improved.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

Thank you for your letter and comments concerning our manuscript entitled "Land Certificated Program and Farmland “Stickiness” of Rural Labor: Based on the Perspective of Land Production Function" (land-1846659).

The comments were valuable for improving our manuscript and guiding our research. We have studied the comments carefully and have made revisions accordingly. We hope that the revisions meet with your approval and please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx