Dynamics of Bilateral Digital Trade: The Case of a Korea–EU Digital Partnership

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study analyzes the Korea-EU digital partnership and realities of bilateral digital trade. However, there are still some deficiencies in the paper as follows:

1. The abstract of the paper does not meet the requirements for publishing the paper. Abstract lack of research background, research methods, research conclusions. There is too much discussion about the purpose of the research. The overall summary also has too many words.

2. Too many keywords. Generally limited to 3-5.

3. There is no discussion on marginal contribution and research purpose in the research background.

4. In the process of research, there is a lack of sufficient theoretical model construction. At the same time, regarding the analysis of data, the method used is too simple and does not meet the requirements of publishing papers.

5. In the study, the author suddenly compares Vietnam with South Korea. Why is that? According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, South Korea is already a developed country. Vietnam is still a developing country. Is there any comparison? I hope the author will give a full explanation of this.

6. The references cannot fully support the research content of the paper. New references are suggested.

This study analyzes the Korea-EU digital partnership and realities of bilateral digital trade. However, there are still some deficiencies in the paper as follows:

1. The abstract of the paper does not meet the requirements for publishing the paper. Abstract lack of research background, research methods, research conclusions. There is too much discussion about the purpose of the research. The overall summary also has too many words.

2. Too many keywords. Generally limited to 3-5.

3. There is no discussion on marginal contribution and research purpose in the research background.

4. In the process of research, there is a lack of sufficient theoretical model construction. At the same time, regarding the analysis of data, the method used is too simple and does not meet the requirements of publishing papers.

5. In the study, the author suddenly compares Vietnam with South Korea. Why is that? According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, South Korea is already a developed country. Vietnam is still a developing country. Is there any comparison? I hope the author will give a full explanation of this.

6. The references cannot fully support the research content of the paper. New references are suggested.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please find attached the addressed comments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The primary focus of this paper is to analyse the trends in bilateral digital trade between Korea and the EU, with a specific emphasis on how these trends align with the objectives of their digital partnership agreement.

 

The contribution is processed clearly, the individual parts follow each other and complement each other appropriately. The authors use current sources of knowledge. However, certain shortcomings were found in this work, which need to be eliminated:

 

11. Add affiliation, e-mail, and other necessary information about authors according to template.

 

 

22. Abstract - remove free lines from the abstract.

Add into abstract: 

·         methods,

·         detailed conclusions.

Remember the abstract length.

 

33. Add the part Methodology.

The materials and methods should be described with sufficient details to allow others to replicate and build on the published results. You must make all materials, data, computer code, and protocols associated with the publication available to readers. New methods and protocols should be described in detail while well-established methods can be briefly de-scribed and appropriately cited.

 

44. Table 1 – Source - improve the font size and type according to template.

 

 

55. Results – it is necessary to add other areas of interest, as well as possible directions of similar research in the future.

 

66. References

Improve references according to acquirements of the journal!

Change:

·         the font size,

·         margin offset,

·         italics font in case of journal/book title.

 

 Overall, this paper should be rearranged a lot.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please find attached the addressed comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Although I found this paper interesting and relevant, some revision is needed to add to clarity. I have one major comment, as well as a few minor ones.

The major comment: I am left wondering, throughout the paper, what digital trade really is, and I am not sure I agree with the implicit definition of the authors. One the one hand, the authors note that the definition of digital trade is fluid, although there is a consensus that "that digital trade encompasses digitally-enabled transactions involving the trade of goods and services". On the other hand, Section 2 goes on to look at digital trade from the perspective of the Digital Economy Report 2019, which doesn't look primarily at "digitally-enable transactions" but rather trade in goods and services used in the digital economy. There is a difference between these two. Looking at the  text of the ROK-EU digital partnership, my interpretation is that it is primarily based on the OECD's view, and that the 11 topics discussed (see page 8) have more to do with "digitally-enabled transactions" than trade in computers and mobile phones. The most interesting discussions in this area deal with the possibilities to simply preference utilization in EU-Korea trade by using digital technologies, e.g. by using block chain technology to document the origin of products. These measures will apply to all types of trade.  

My suggestion is that the authors problematize the definition of digital trade by moving the 11 topics identified in the agreement to the introduction. Alternatively it might be possible to more explicity contradict the OECD definition and the Digital Economy Report. It would highlight the multidimensional nature of the problem. A downside would be that some of the discussion in Section 2 would perhaps be a bit too detailed. If it is about "digitally-enabled trade" rather than actual trade in ICT components, then the ICT imbalances between the EU and Korea are perhaps not so important. 

This would of course also require toning down the importance of the conclusion that "the current state of the digital trade is small and unbalanced". It might not be very important if the objective is to make all others kinds of trade more effective. 

Some smaller comments:

p. 2: Given the uncertainty about what constitutes "digital trade" it is perhaps not approriate to claim that global digital trade constituted a certain percentage of world trade in 1995 or 2018.

p. 2, lines 76-77: Change section four to section three. 

 p. 3, line 103ff: The number on the development of EU-Korea trade are hard to interpret unless they are put in context. The observation that trade grew by 37% in 10 years is not impressive.

p. 55, line 157ff: It appears from the text that Vietnam only sells electronic components to the EU. I know for a fact that the Samsung phone I purchased in the EU was made in Vietnam. I would expect a large share of Vietnamese exports to the EU to be completely assembled phones rather than electronic components -- please check product codes in EU import data. 

Figures 2-3: Please add explicit references to the figures in the text.

p. 7, line 219-220: I don't believe in the statement that high-cost European garments would have low income elasticity. On the contrary, luxury goods such as branded garments are typically used as examples of goods with high income elasticity. Add reference if you claim the opposite. 

p. 7,line 227ff: In the first part of the sentence, you relate online sales to the EU to total online sales. In the second part of the sentence, you relate online imports from the EU to all online imports. This is confusing. Use similar bases in both parts of the sentence (e.g. online sales to the EU as a share of all online exports).

p. 9, line 254: You claim that "Digital trade plays a crucial role in shaping the future...". How do you know that? For example, intercontinental online trade would probably diminish dramatically if intercontinental exports were properly taxed (taking into account environmental externalities).

p. 9, line 311-312: You claim that "The cautious approach to digital trade that both Korea and the EU take in the bilateral digital partnership might be a sign of divergent views on the matter." But what if they are not interested so much in "digital trade" as you define it, but rather "digitally-enabled trade" as OECD defines it?

p. 11, line 365: Isn't China part of Asia?

p.11. line 387-388: You claim that "Currently, Korean business groups hold more than 80% of patents in key future technologies." Which are these key technologies? What is the source of the 80% share?

p. 12, line 414ff: It is not clear to me how an investment agreement could be connected to the digital trade agreement, and what competitive advantages European investors would have in the Korean market.

 

Overall, the paper is well written and clear. However, a round of proofreading is needed; there are several cases where letters or entire words have been dropped and articles are missing. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please find attached the addressed comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

 

I don't think the content of the paper has been substantially revised. I still recommend rejection.

I don't think the content of the paper has been substantially revised. I still recommend rejection.

Author Response

New Comment

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 I don't think the content of the paper has been substantially revised. I still recommend rejection.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I don't think the content of the paper has been substantially revised. I still recommend rejection.

 

Old Comments:

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study analyzes the Korea-EU digital partnership and realities of bilateral digital trade. However, there are still some deficiencies in the paper as follows:

1. The abstract of the paper does not meet the requirements for publishing the paper. Abstract lack of research background, research methods, research conclusions. There is too much discussion about the purpose of the research. The overall summary also has too many words.

The abstract is segregated into the components and the key word of each part is highlighted.

2. Too many keywords. Generally limited to 3-5.

There are only 3 keywords provided.

3. There is no discussion on marginal contribution and research purpose in the research background.

The research purpose and contribution are discussed in the introduction lines 53-66, p.2

4. In the process of research, there is a lack of sufficient theoretical model construction. At the same time, regarding the analysis of data, the method used is too simple and does not meet the requirements of publishing papers.

The paper has used case study method, with the aim to have more in depth descripts of the Korea and EU trade as per the gap and purpose. Theoretical model development was not the aim. The case method is popular in in depth process research as cited in the methodology.

5. In the study, the author suddenly compares Vietnam with South Korea. Why is that? According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, South Korea is already a developed country. Vietnam is still a developing country. Is there any comparison? I hope the author will give a full explanation of this.

Vietnam cam into the discussion on p.4  as context of when Korean Companies have started manufacturing in Vietnam – so the discussion is made how this movement will reflect in the Korean trade with Europe. It has been rationalized in on lines 154-157 on p. 4

6. The references cannot fully support the research content of the paper. New references are suggested.

The number of references had been increased from 19 to 47. These are in addition to the footnotes provided in the case

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This study analyzes the Korea-EU digital partnership and realities of bilateral digital trade. However, there are still some deficiencies in the paper as follows:

1. The abstract of the paper does not meet the requirements for publishing the paper. Abstract lack of research background, research methods, research conclusions. There is too much discussion about the purpose of the research. The overall summary also has too many words.
2. Too many keywords. Generally limited to 3-5.
3. There is no discussion on marginal contribution and research purpose in the research background.
4. In the process of research, there is a lack of sufficient theoretical model construction. At the same time, regarding the analysis of data, the method used is too simple and does not meet the requirements of publishing papers.
5. In the study, the author suddenly compares Vietnam with South Korea. Why is that? According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, South Korea is already a developed country. Vietnam is still a developing country. Is there any comparison? I hope the author will give a full explanation of this.
6. The references cannot fully support the research content of the paper. New references are suggested.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Ok. 

Author Response

Thank you for your decision

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

I recommend acceptance of the paper

I recommend acceptance of the paper