Theories behind Change of Land Expropriation Institutions in Cross-Strait: An Analysis from Historical Institutionalism Approach
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Land expropriation is crucial for maintaining social security and stability and achieving coordinated economic and social development. Taking a historical perspective on the fundamental trajectory, logic, and evolution of land expropriation policy and institutional changes can help to better understand the underlying logic and contribute to further improvements in land expropriation institutions. This article systematically analyzes the fundamental trajectory, logic, and dynamic mechanisms of land expropriation institutional changes in mainland China and Taiwan, providing reference and inspiration for similar developing countries in their institutional arrangements. I believe this study has significant theoretical value.
I have two suggestions as follows：
1. The author mentioned conducting in-depth interviews with six experts in land institutional research. However, the evolution of land expropriation institutions involves multiple actors, and it may be challenging to fully understand the underlying logic from a practical perspective by only interviewing experts. Specifically, the analysis of policy-making and implementation processes and the perceptions and understandings of stakeholders are lacking. This lack of comprehensive analysis from different perspectives may limit the integrity and impartiality of the research. If possible, it is recommended to consider interviewing a broader range of actors and conduct further analysis based on their perspectives.
2. The article analyzes the fundamental trajectory, logic, and dynamic mechanisms of land expropriation institutional changes between mainland China and Taiwan. However, the core innovative contribution of the article is not explicitly highlighted, especially in comparison to existing researches. It is suggested to improve this aspect by clearly stating the main contributions of the article in relation to existing studies.
Author Response
I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to revise my manuscript entitled "Research on the Change of Land Expropriation Institutions in Cross-Strait: A Comparative Analysis from Historical Institutionalism Approaches". Thank you very much for your positive and constructive comments and suggestions on my manuscript, which are greatly valuable for enhancing and improving my paper, as well as for their significant guidance in my research. I have carefully studied your comments and have made changes, indicated in red font in this document. Please see the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In this paper, the authors provide a good overview of the issue of land expropriation in the context of rapid urbanization in developing countries, with a focus on the Chinese Mainland and Taiwan. They employ a sound analytical framework combining historical institutionalism, the comparison case method, and in-depth interviews to shed light on the developmental path of land expropriation institutions across the Cross-Strait region. However, I have some comments and suggestions that can be made to enhance the quality and clarity of the article:
· The article mentions the use of in-depth interviews, but it would be beneficial to provide more details about the sample size, selection criteria, and the process used for conducting these interviews. Additionally, information about data collection and analysis methods should be included.
· The authors touch on the five distinct developmental stages of land expropriation institutions in the Cross-Strait region. To enhance the article's substantive contribution, consider providing more concrete examples or case studies to illustrate each stage. This can make the findings more tangible and relatable to the reader.
· The article discusses differences in land expropriation institutions between the Chinese Mainland and Taiwan, mentioning induced factors and institutional change patterns. It would be helpful to discuss these differences further to strengthen the comparative analysis.
· The authors should also acknowledge any limitations of the study, such as potential biases in interviews or data limitations. Additionally, suggest avenues for future research in this area.
English is fine but minor checks on spelling and grammar is necessary.
Author Response
I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to revise my manuscript entitled "Research on the Change of Land Expropriation Institutions in Cross-Strait: A Comparative Analysis from Historical Institutionalism Approaches". Thank you very much for your positive and constructive comments and suggestions on my manuscript, which are greatly valuable for enhancing and improving my paper, as well as for their significant guidance in my research. I have carefully studied your comments and have made changes, indicated in red font in this document. Please see the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Minor comments are attached in the pdf file. Please include a framework for discussions and formulate separate conclusions for each of the three research questions
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to revise my manuscript entitled "Research on the Change of Land Expropriation Institutions in Cross-Strait: A Comparative Analysis from Historical Institutionalism Approaches". Thank you very much for your positive and constructive comments and suggestions on my manuscript, which are greatly valuable for enhancing and improving my paper, as well as for their significant guidance in my research. I have carefully studied your comments and have made changes, indicated in red font in this document. Please see the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I think the author has responded well to the relevant suggestions. Although it was difficult to collect some of the interviews for certain reasons, I am inclined to agree with the decision to proceed with publication.
