Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is very interesting and deals with an important problem. The topic is difficult to study. Appropriate research methods were used. 

The study conducted a worldwide evaluation of the effectiveness of document and border procedures in each country. 

Authors should add the aim of the research or thesis.

The reforms carried out are not the same in all countries and do not produce the same results. Information about the impact of agreements between countries should be added. E.g., the European Union imposes administrative solutions on its members.

Fig. 3 and 4 should be corrected.

Author Response

1. Authors should add the aim of the research or thesis.

Introduction is modified and the aims of this study are clearly explained. We also update Line 81-88.  

[Line 74-80] “However, how efficient the document and border procedures in each country are compared to that of other countries remains unclear. Besides, the impact of new reforms on its efficiency have not been clarified. Thus, this study evaluates the efficiency of international trade document and border procedures of each country via data envelopment analysis (DEA). We also investigate the change in the efficiency of document and border procedures after conducting reforms. Our findings contribute to the literature by providing implications on how countries can make trading procedures more efficient.”

 

2. The reforms carried out are not the same in all countries and do not produce the same results. Information about the impact of agreements between countries should be added. E.g., the European Union imposes administrative solutions on its members.

We agree that the reform is not the same in each country even if it is classified in the same category. Therefore, we added several reforms as the examples from the World Bank [9]. 

[Line 283-297] First, the examples of the reform classified in the reform category “Enhanced customs administration and inspections” are as follows. In 2016-2017, El Salvador increased the number of customs officers for clearance and inspections, reducing border compliance time [9]. In 2018-2019, Ukraine made trading across borders easier by eliminating the verification requirement on auto-parts [9]. Second, the examples of the reform classified in the reform category “Introduced or improved electronic submission and processing of documents” are as follows. In 2015-2016, Argentina introduced a new Import Monitoring System, which reduced the time for import documentary compliance by 144 hours [9]. In 2016-2017, Bolivia upgraded its automated customs system and reduced documentary compliance time to export [9]. Third, the examples of the reform classified in the reform category “Strengthened transport or port infrastructure.” are as follows. In 2016-2017, Angola rehabilitated the Port of Luanda, improving handling processes and reducing border compliance time [9]. In 2018-2019, El Salvador made exporting easier by introducing an intermediate customs post in Santa Ana, reducing congestion at the Anguiatú border crossing [9].”

In addition, some countries reduced trade time and cost by entering a customs union or signing a trade agreement with major trade partners for exports and imports. For example, Kosovo launched an Albania-Kosovo Transit Corridor that decreased the export compliance time by 15 hours. However, due to its limited sample size, a comparison of efficiency values before and after the reform is not performed. Therefore, we also added the explanations. 

[Line 297-301] “Between 2015 and 2018, several countries such as Kosovo and the Kyrgyz Republic implemented reforms to enter a customs union or signed a trade agreement with a major trade partner for exports and imports. However, due to its limited sample size, a comparison of efficiency values before and after the reforms in this category is not conducted.”

 

3.  Fig. 3 and 4 should be corrected.

We modified Figure 3 and 4, and added the notes. The dots in previous two figures showed the inner as well as outlier data, however, these dots are removed to avoid confusion.  

[Line 403-406] “Note: × and midline in the boxes represent the mean and median of efficiency value in each period respectively. The bottom and top edges of each shaded rectangle represent first and third quartile of efficiency value in each period, respectively. The vertical line extends from the top and bottom of the rectangle to indicate the maximum and minimum value of efficiency value in each period, respectively.”

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Using a data envelopment analysis (DEA) and a window analysis, this manuscript aims to investigate the efficiency of document and border procedures in each country. In particular, by comparing the calculated efficiencies of the document and border procedures before and after three types of reforms: i) enhanced customs administration and inspections, ii) introduced or improved electronic submission and processing of documents, and iii) strengthened transport or port infrastructure, the authors claim that all the three reforms improve the efficiency of export document and border procedures while the efficiency of import document and border procedures improves only after the introduction (or improvement) of the electronic submission and processing of documents.

Overall, I think that the manuscript is addressing relevant and meaningful questions from a policy perspective and exploring it in an interesting way. Nonetheless, several issues arise in terms of the validity and robustness of the proposed results. Below are some comments and suggestions that I would like to share with the authors to improve the manuscript.

The authors define the trading partner for importing as the country importing the largest value of auto parts, while the trading partner for exporting is defined as the country with the largest aggregate export value. Such different definition raises some validity and robustness questions about the main results of Table 4. If we would choose different products other than the auto parts, the results should be different. Maybe taking the largest aggregate import value in the same way would be simpler and more acceptable for general readers. Here, some explanation and justification are required.

Related to the above issue, another question arises about the choice of input and output variables. Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) is used to measure productive efficiency of decision-making units (DMU) by investigating the ratio between produced outputs and used inputs, and each DMU is an economic agent who can control its inputs and outputs as well as the allocation according to the change of environment. On the other hand, the aggregate imports and exports should be determined mostly outside the control of DMU (for example, by global or bilateral market demand and supply). Regarding the relationship between the chosen input and output variables, some explanation and justification are required.

The authors consider three types of reforms, but do not consider the magnitude of the reforms. That is, even though we count as one reform, the impact of a reform of one-hundred-dollar and of one-billion-dollar should largely be different. In relative terms, and about the magnitude of each reform, some clarification is required.

Author Response

1. The authors define the trading partner for importing as the country importing the largest value of auto parts, while the trading partner for exporting is defined as the country with the largest aggregate export value. Such different definition raises some validity and robustness questions about the main results of Table 4. If we would choose different products other than the auto parts, the results should be different. Maybe taking the largest aggregate import value in the same way would be simpler and more acceptable for general readers. Here, some explanation and justification are required.

The reviewer's comment is correct. However, the reason for this definition is that the data source of input variables, namely Trading Across Borders compiled by the World Bank [21], shows the data only for trading these products, thus we followed the definition. We added one of our research limitations. Just note that we define the export trading partner as the country that was the largest purchaser of the product of the country’s comparative advantage.

[Line 536-538] “First, there are several data limitations, including the input variables being only for trade with each country’s major trading partners and the lack of details on the reforms implemented in each.”

 

2. Related to the above issue, another question arises about the choice of input and output variables. Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) is used to measure productive efficiency of decision-making units (DMU) by investigating the ratio between produced outputs and used inputs, and each DMU is an economic agent who can control its inputs and outputs as well as the allocation according to the change of environment. On the other hand, the aggregate imports and exports should be determined mostly outside the control of DMU (for example, by global or bilateral market demand and supply). Regarding the relationship between the chosen input and output variables, some explanation and justification are required.

DMUs can partly control output variables. It is because if a country has a trade barrier in its main trade route transported by the main mode, the trade by its route and mode can be limited. The cargo volume and values are often used as output variables in many previous studies, which use DEA or DEA window methods, such as Fanou and Wang [14], Xu and Ishiguro [15], and Cullinane et al. [18]. Regarding input variables, we choose them based on previous research to argues these input variables have an influence on trade. It has been explained in Line 224 to 230.

 

3. The authors consider three types of reforms, but do not consider the magnitude of the reforms. That is, even though we count as one reform, the impact of a reform of one-hundred-dollar and of one-billion-dollar should largely be different. In relative terms, and about the magnitude of each reform, some clarification is required.  

 We fully agree that the impact of a reform is not the same in each country. It is partly because the reform is not the same, even classified in the same category as shown in Table 3. However, data source shows what reforms are done, but does not show the magnitude of the reforms. The record of reforms is derived from the database of Trading Across Borders compiled by World Bank [9]. Thus, we added one of our research limitations. 

[Line 536-538] “First, there are several data limitations, including the input variables being only for trade with each country’s major trading partners and the lack of details on the reforms implemented in each.”