The Impact of Government Subsidies on Technological Innovation in Agribusiness: The Case for China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is quite correctly conceived!

The introduction is too long. It is not uncommon for the Introduction to provide an overview of previous research. This is the case in this paper. However, if there is a special Literature Review section, then the Introduction is usually significantly shorter. The aim of the paper, research tasks and hypotheses should be logically placed after the Literature Review section or at the end of the aforementioned section. The goal of the work is defined only after extensive insight into the results of previous research.

Instructions for correcting the Introduction:

The introduction is a short review, which aims to introduce the potential reader to the topic, which is the subject of research. The introduction practically hints at what will be shown in the paper. In the introduction, state why the author became interested in the given topic. The introduction should contain enough information for the reader to understand and evaluate the ideas and activity of the author, the achieved results, without first consulting the wider literature. In the Introduction, state the nature and justification of research on a given topic.

Also, suggestions are written in the paper itself, which should be respected to the greatest extent.

It was a pleasure for me to read the paper and expand my perspectives on the given topic.

Indeed, the paper, after correction, can be interesting, both for scientists and for decision-makers at macro levels.

Good luck!

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thanks for your valuable suggestions. Please, see the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Although I’m not an expert in agricultural development, the authors take a clear narrow question on the importance of government subsidies to such development. The methods are well explicated and applied with the findings intuitively argued towards reasonable implications. My main suggestions are to make clear the limitations of the findings given the single case study’s necessarily narrow nature, yet also consider the relevance of the findings to other regions’ agricultural development patterns.

Author Response

Thanks for your valuable suggestions. Please, see the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I read with great interest the manuscript “The impact of government subsidies on technological innovation in agribusiness: the case for China”.  The manuscript examines the role of subsidies on technological innovation, taking china as an example. The issue is arguably interesting though not directly relevant with scope and aims of “Sustainability”, at least as I see them. The preparation of the manuscript has not been very careful.  The manuscript needs a thorough proof reading by a native speaker, appropriate editing, logically structure reorganizing and finally justify why an enterprise with a patent contributes to sustainability.

Some of my reservation are:

1) Line 13: what is the difference between agricultural and rural modernization? Or modernization of rural areas (line 35)

Lines 37-38: incomprehensive

2) Lines 40-41 confusing and vague

3) Lines 44, do you mean adopt innovations?

4) Lines 48-49 repetition

5) Line 50, why three views? And not five?

6) Subsidies are not defined in the introduction. How do the authors conceptualize “subsidies”? as “income transfers”, as “cost sharing programs”, as “conditional (on outcome) payments”,  and so on.

7) Line 59 “should induce”??? adverse selection. It is not possible  The authors seem to be confused as what “adverse selection” means.

8) line 60 “please explain why subsidies bring about crowding out and precisely what kind of crowding out.

9) lines 64-65 confusing

10) lines 71-72, the fact that literature contains contradictory results does not necessarily means that “scholars have inconsistencies..”

11) Line 83, “ agriculture in rural areas”  Is there an agriculture in urban areas?

12) Lines 108-112, the research questions emerge prior to the literature synopsis (it is not possible)

13) lines 114-115 confusing and vague

14) lines 155-157 confusing

15) lines 165-167 confusing

16) Line 279 while patents symbolize innovations, a firm may be innovative, compare to what it used to be, by being corporal responsible, energy (more) efficient, waste (more) efficient and so many other things so I find it too restrictive.

 

Author Response

Thanks for your valuable suggestions. Please, see the attached file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

1. The paper starts the research from the perspective of the whole industry chain, while in the introduction part, it only simply states that there are gaps in relevant research (lines 89-91), and there is no clear description of why the paper conducts research from the perspective of the whole industry chain, and the significance and purpose of doing so. In addition, could the author consider the relationship between the whole industrial chain perspective and the technological innovation of agricultural enterprises to be further explored?

2. Lines 71-77 of the introduction need literature support.

3. The innovation point is not a simple list of what the paper has done, and the paper is too wordy in the description of innovation points. The second and third points are not enough to listed the innovation point (lines 119-136), and the author should condense the innovation points in the article.

4. The paper considers three conditions in the heterogeneity analysis (section 4.4), in addition to these three basic situation,whether the enterprise's own technology innovation talents, the differences in government policies in different regions, the local economic development level, the social responsibility of the firms and the education level of enterprise management also have an impact on it is worth studying, and the author may consider enriching this part.

5. Is there a significant geographical characteristic of the impact of government subsidies on the development of firms' technological innovation, and if so, it may lead to a systematic trend of the innovation development of firms in different geographical areas after receiving government subsidies over time, which in turn affects the accuracy of the article's conclusions. Could the authors consider including this part in the robustness test（lines 457-467）?

Author Response

Thanks for your valuable suggestions. Please, see the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Thank you for your effort in improving the manuscript.

Author Response

Thanks for your time