Features of Geo-Economic Network between China and Countries along the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Although the topic is interesting, the authors only resort to statistics and ranks without analyzing the maritime flow disturbances in detail, only macro assessments.

1. Economics is attributed to liberal thinking in international relations, and this analysis captures exactly this aspect but does not highlight it sufficiently theoretically. How would you apply Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye's theory of complex interdependencies to your study? When does advantageous interdependence occur, and when do we face disadvantageous interdependence within the maritime geo-economic network? In what situations is centrality affected?

2. How do you define the term "American countries" in the context of state sovereignty? The authors use reference no. 30, but a conceptualization of this term with arguments is necessary. It is a highly pretentious connotation and seems to have an ideological dimension, which would jeopardize objectivity in research.

3. The authors describe methods, data, and the paper's concept, but research questions or hypotheses are missing. Therefore, it has to fix this issue.

 

4. Besides the financial crisis and the war in Syria - mentioned by the authors, what other risks can generate a "crowding-out effect"? Have you identified a matrix of risks that may affect centrality?

5. Please explain what you mean by "geopolitical game." A conceptualization is needed!

6. The authors stated: "China should focus on cooperation with regional powers along the Maritime Silk Road, promote balanced development of bilateral geo-economic element flows, improve investment efficiency, and strengthen financial cooperation to upgrade the MSRCs investment network." Please be more explicit and correlate your findings logically with conclusions based on the operationalization process.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your careful guidance on the paper. Your comments are very helpful to improve the quality of the paper. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts. We have revised the paper according to your comments, please review our revised manuscript, thank you.

1. Economics is attributed to liberal thinking in international relations, and this analysis captures exactly this aspect but does not highlight it sufficiently theoretically. How would you apply Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye's theory of complex interdependencies to your study? When does advantageous interdependence occur, and when do we face disadvantageous interdependence within the maritime geo-economic network? In what situations is centrality affected?

Reply: Thank you very much for the question. Keohane and Nye believe that the interdependence of countries stems from international economic exchanges brought about by the flow of economic factors such as capital, commodities, people, and information. The circulation and transformation of geo-economic factors such as trade, investment, and resources are not only international economic exchanges, but also a reflection of national economic interdependence among countries. However, the interdependence relationship emphasizes the sensitivity and vulnerability of one party to the other, while the geo-economic network emphasizes the state of interdependence formed by the interconnection of countries, and cannot directly reveal the degree of interdependence. Therefore, the geo-economic network analysis of this study mainly focuses on the structural characteristics of the geo-economic network of MSRCs rather than the interdependence of MSRCs. We will use sensitivity and vulnerability models in our next study to analyze the interdependence of China and the MSRCs geo-economic network and explore favorable interdependence and unfavorable interdependence. We have added supplementary explanation on this issue in sections 1.

In trade networks and investment networks, country centrality is closely related to trade flows or investment flows. Political reforms of Myanmar, the development of foreign trade in South Korea, the war in Syria all have caused changes of trade flows, resulting in changes in the centrality of countries in the MSRCs trade network. The construction of the Belt and Road, the construction of the China-ASEAN Free Trade Area, and the industrial transfer all have caused changes in investment flows, resulting in changes in the centrality of countries in the MSRCs investment network. The factors that affect centrality are variable, and this paper analyzes centrality according to the specific situation of each country in the network.

 

2. How do you define the term "American countries" in the context of state sovereignty? The authors use reference no. 30, but a conceptualization of this term with arguments is necessary. It is a highly pretentious connotation and seems to have an ideological dimension, which would jeopardize objectivity in research.

Reply: Thank you very much for pointing out this problem. The term "American countries" is my expression error. There is no ideological dimension here. I am referring to countries in North America and South America. We have revised the inappropriate expression of "American countries" in the revised manuscript.

3. The authors describe methods, data, and the paper'sconcept, but research questions or hypotheses are missing. Therefore, it has to fix this issue.

Reply:Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have added the research questions in the article. Please review the revised manuscript for details.

4. Besides the financial crisis and the war in Syria - mentioned by the authors, what other risks can generate a "crowding-out effect"? Have you identified a matrix of risks that may affect centrality?

Reply: This is a very good question. The key of the geo-economic network is the interaction of geo-economic flows between countries. The change of the geo-economic flows will lead to the change of the centrality of countries in the geo-economic network. Besides the financial crisis and the war in Syria, geopolitical conflicts, trade protectionism, and changes in industrial structure may affect trade and investment flows between countries, and can generate a "crowding-out effect" to centrality. Centrality is part of the characteristics of the geo-economic network, not the whole of the geo-economic network. The matrix that affects centrality is variable, and it is not necessary to directly propose a certain matrix that affects centrality. According to the actual situation of centrality change among countries, this paper determines the factors that affect centrality and then analyzes the centrality change.

5. Please explain what you mean by "geopolitical game." A conceptualization is needed!

Reply: Thank you very much for pointing out this problem. Geopolitical game is a geopolitical interaction in which countries engage in competition, conflict, containment, cooperation, alliance based on geographical conditions, resource endowment, historical geography and other factors in order to safeguard their own interests. We have explained this concept in the revised manuscript.

6. The authors stated: "China should focus on cooperation with regional powers along the Maritime Silk Road, promote balanced development of bilateral geo-economic element flows, improve investment efficiency, and strengthen financial cooperation to upgrade the MSRCs investment network." Please be more explicit and correlate your findings logically with conclusions based on the operationalization process.

Reply: Thank you very much for your suggestion. According to your suggestion, we have revised this part in the revised manuscript. Please review the revised manuscript for details.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this article, the authors conduct a study to analyze the geo-economic network between China and other countries in the 21st Century. It provides several findings based on the historical evolution found in the datasets. However, there are some points that need to be improved.

– Use Section instead of Chapter. Furthermore, introduce the structure of the paper in a separate paragraph.

– Only equation 3 has an identifier. Please be consistent (either put identifiers in all equations or not).

– Try to break very long paragraphs into smaller ones (e.g., the paragraph in Section 2.2)

– Include more details about the datasets employed in the paper, such as the number of columns and rows.

– The main gap in this paper is that it was not clear how the results were obtained (e.g., the generation of Figure 2) by considering the information in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 only. A small example of the network by using some samples of the dataset would help to understand how the methods were employed in the paper.

– Check Figure 3 – the labels on the x-axis should be in English.

– The identification of the Categories is not well-clear. Please use a table that clearly indicates the meaning of these categories (e.g., there are categories in Sections 3.1.4 and 3.2.4 – are they the same?)

– What is the difference between “geo-economic network” and “social network” - both terms should be clearly defined in the paper as well as their role in the analysis.

Please improve the English grammar and check the spelling. An example of a typo:

- “Therefor” on Page 3

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your careful guidance on the paper. Your comments are very helpful to improve the quality of the paper. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts. We have revised the paper according to your comments, please review our revised manuscript, thank you.

1.Use Section instead of Chapter. Furthermore, introduce the structure of the paper in a separate paragraph.

Reply: Thank you very much for pointing out this problem. According to your suggestion, we have revised this part in the revised manuscript. Please review the revised manuscript for details.

2. Only equation 3 has an identifier. Please be consistent (either put identifiers in all equations or not).

Reply: Thank you very much for pointing out this problem. According to your suggestion, we have revised this part in the revised manuscript. Please review the revised manuscript for details.

3.Try to break very long paragraphs into smaller ones (e.g., the paragraph in Section 2.2)

Reply: Thank you very much for pointing out this problem. We have changed long paragraphs into small paragraphs in the revised manuscript.

4.Include more details about the datasets employed in the paper, such as the number of columns and rows.

Reply: Thank you very much for pointing out this problem. We present the datasets in more detail in the revised manuscript.

5.The main gap in this paper is that it was not clear how the results were obtained (e.g., the generation of Figure 2) by considering the information in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 only. A small example of the network by using some samples of the dataset would help to understand how the methods were employed in the paper.

Reply: Thank you very much for pointing out the problem. We have added geo-economic network construction in the revised manuscript and explained how to get the various graphs,tables and results in the revised manuscript. Please review the revised manuscript for details.

6.Check Figure 3 – the labels on the x-axis should be in English.

Reply: Thank you very much for pointing out this problem. We have revised this part in the revised manuscript. Please review the revised manuscript for details.

7. The identification of the Categories is not well-clear. Please use a table that clearly indicates the meaning of these categories (e.g., there are categories in Sections 3.1.4 and 3.2.4 – are they the same?)

Reply: Thank you very much for pointing out the problem. Our use of categories to express subgroup was wrong, we have fixed this. Cohesive subgroups analysis is a kind of social network analysis tool. Cohesive subgroups analysis can determine the number of cohesive subgroups in the network and which members each cohesive subgroup contains, and help us identify the community structure of the network. In sections 3.1.4 and 3.2.4, we analyze the cohesive subgroups of the MSRCs trade networks and the MSRCs investment networks.A cohesive subgroup is a subset of nodes with relatively direct and close relationships in the network. In the MSRCs trade network and the MSRCs investment network, each subgroup is a collection of countries with relatively direct and close connections. Subgroups in sections 3.1.4 and sections 3.2.4 are subsets of countries. Due to the change of trade network and investment network, the countries included in sections 3.1.4 and 3.2.4 are not the same.Therefore, we added an explanation of the connotation of subgroups in section 2.1.4. Maps and tables are two different ways of presenting cohesive subgroups. Since the map presenting is more intuitive and beautiful than the table, we continue to use the maps to display the cohesive subgroups. In response to solve this problem, we have made modifications in Section 2.1.4, Sections 3.1.4 and Sections3.2.4. Please review the revised manuscript for details.

8.What is the difference between “geo-economic network” and “social network” - both terms should be clearly defined in the paper as well as their role in the analysis.

Please improve the English grammar and check the spelling. An example of a typo:

- “Therefor” on Page 3

Reply: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We added an introduction to the connotation of geo-economic network and social network analysis in Sections 1 and  Sections 2.1, and introduced their role in the analysis.This article mentions social network analysis and does not mention social networks. A geo-economic network is an economic network that links countries together due to the circulation and conversion of various geo-economic factors such as trade, investment, transportation, and resources among countries. Social network analysis is a typical analysis method for analyzing network morphology, characteristics and structure.Using social network analysis can not only analyze the evolution of the morphology, characteristics and structure of the MSRCs geo-economic network, but also reveal the evolution characteristics of the MSRCs geo-economic relations.  Please review the revised manuscript for details.

      The typo error "therefor" on page 3 has been revised. We have improved the English grammar and checked the spelling of the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Congratulations and good luck! Thank you for considering the constructive dialogue and paper improvements!