Changes in Agri-Food Export Competitiveness Based on the Sophistication Analysis: The Case of Xinjiang, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The MS entitled “Changes in Agri-food Export Competitiveness based on the sophistication analysis: the case of Xinjiang, China” has described about the contribution of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region to agri-food exports. Xinjiang has focused more on agri-food export competitiveness as a result of rising standards for agri-food export quality, rising barriers to green trade, and a desire to promote sustainable commerce at regional levels.

Basically this study examines the agricultural products from Xinjiang's overall and categorical export competitiveness using the export sophistication index (APs).

The study reveals that (1) medium and medium-low sophistication products make up the majority of Xinjiang's AP exports and its overall structure has been optimised along with the growing scale; (2) Horticultural products continue to hold a leading position, outperforming the national average while not being very competitive in Xinjiang; (3) However, when compared to the national average, the bulk APs, animal products, aquatic goods, drinks and tobacco, and other APs do not exhibit any discernible export competitiveness; (4) Since the COVID-19 outbreak, the export structure of Xinjiang's APs has been skewed toward horticultural products, exhibiting an unfavourable trend in export competitiveness distribution—"the strong getting stronger and the weak getting weaker"—and evolving more slowly than the country as a whole. This situation demands the attention of policymakers.

This outcome is consistent with the export system that favours raw agricultural products and their initial processing in Xinjiang. On the other hand, Xinjiang's APs' export structure is heavily reliant on horticultural goods. It demonstrates the negative tendency of "the strong getting stronger and the poor getting weaker" in export competitiveness distribution.

Even Nevertheless, this kind of research is very helpful for analysing various crops, particularly horticulture high-value commodities for export, which directly affect farmers' income and provide guidance for future farming. Some implications and suggestions for policymakers were also drawn from the aforementioned results. On the one hand, Xinjiang's APs' total export competitiveness is constrained by the low share of medium-high and high complexity exports.

Please summarise fully and change the sentence in the manuscript for examples-

#In Line 108-110: The authors has written…………..The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. In section 2, we describe methods and data. We then analyze our results in section 3 and discuss them in section 4. In the final section, we summarize the major findings and draw our conclusions.

What does it mean? It is well known fact that MDPI journals have their own format and in final version it will be printed as per the journal style.

#There are many places where the text is not conveying information properly, please do the needful.

#the English language need to address throughout the manuscript.

# the content is understandable and readable, but there is still room for improvement for the average reader.

# the authors tried to draw conclusions from the information and used argument to convey evidence in the text.

Finally, I would want to say that I am partially satisfied with the MS findings and therefore major revision is required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

We have read the proposed article "Changes in Agri-food Export Competitiveness based on the sophistication analysis: the case of Xinjiang, China". 

In the following part of the message, you will find our comments on each specific part of your study.

Introduction

Considering the introductory paragraph, the authors should better clarify the theoretical framework to which the study refers. The authors should include additional clarification elements about agri-food export and export sophistication. Do the authors think that the export sophistication index can be applied to agricultural products without specific consideration of the peculiar nature of these products, which are distinctive if confronted with industrial products? The four elements of export sophistication (i.e., (i) technology, (ii) ease of product fragmentation, (iii) natural resource availability, and (iv) marketing) require further theoretical developments with the categories of agricultural products, specifically concerning the concepts of labour-intensive production and capital-intensive production. 

Further, on this point, how does your work refer to classical international trade theories? Scrutinizing your references, we do not see clear elements of the specification. We suggest you to better contextualize your work within the theoretical discussion. 

Moreover, a broader specification and clarification of the geo-socio-political context of the region under analysis would help the reader better understand the contextual elements. This would allow for a better exploration of the study's implications at a political level.

Even the emphasis on factors mitigating the competitiveness of Chinese agri-food exports is an aspect that needs to be addressed in the article. We recall that in the abstract, reference is made to "Growing quality requirements for agri-food export, increasing green trade barriers, and a desire to emphasize sustainable trade at regional levels". These aspects deserve a more comprehensive analysis (for example, in Line 33, the relationship between competitiveness and sustainable development of agri-food trade is mentioned).

The paper's originality is described at the end of the introductory paragraph in three main points; it would be more convincing if they were also reflected in the rest of the introduction. In Line 106, the third point could be more straightforward and could be anticipated and developed better in the previous paragraphs.

Literature review (in the Introduction)

The authors' first study to be cited - [1], Line 31 - is from 2005. It is appropriate to mention also more recent works. 

Note that in Line 116, the link to reference [33] is incorrect.

In the Materials and Methods, the literature cited is canonical and consistent with the methodology adopted. Still, as we have anticipated before, a much clear theoretical presentation is needed on how the study suits international trade theories by considering the specificity of agricultural products. 

Materials and Methods

To improve the understanding of the methodology, we suggest to the authors to enhance the logical order in which the work phases are presented, promptly integrating the information necessary to clarify the consequentiality of the various steps. A graphical representation of the method could help. 

Some possible suggestions for the authors are: 

• The authors explain that two methodological steps were necessary to perform their analysis (after the initial step of agri-food products classification). Nevertheless, if the first corresponds to the construction of the APs export sophistication for the product k, then the second step (the second index related to the sophistication level of the country) has to be appropriately introduced to follow the rationale of your methodological approach (Line 128). 
• But practically speaking, the steps are three, each referring to a specific formula. 
• To the first formula: Yj refers to the per-capita income of the country j measured as the Gross Domestic Product per capita in constant 2017 international dollars. Considering that you are analysing agricultural products, why haven't you considered the Agricultural Gross Domestic Product per capita? This would be better to reveal the country's competitive advantage in agricultural production. 
• The paragraph starting with Line 151 describes where the data used to populate each formula derive: integrating all this information where the procedures are described could clarify the method's description.

Results

In this paragraph, we suggest that the authors optimize the graphical presentation of graphs and tables by standardizing their style. 

·       In Figure 1, the legend needs to clearly explain what EXPY refers to (i.e., Xinjiang's APs) and what the ranking refers to (i.e., the national level). The unit of measurement for EXPY is reported as "International $"; later, in Figure 4, the same is indicated as USD. 

·       In Figure 3, it may be helpful to highlight in the graph the position of the Xinjiang region (in the fourth position compared to the others). 

·      Fig. 4 appears rich in details and colours; the authors could separate the data (EXPY and Share in %) into two different graphs.

·      

Discussion and Conclusions

The presentation of a more general framework of the geo-socio-political context and the "factors that mitigate agri-food exports from the outside" would facilitate a broader discussion concerning the implications for policymakers. 

Some sentences should be clarified, for example:

·      The conclusions are organized into three main points and give the impression that these recall those described in the introduction. However, this structure differs from what is included in the abstract, where 4 points from the results are highlighted.

·       Point 3 (Line 395) mentions specific theories ("theories of comparative advantage and factor endowment") that deserve to be presented in the introductory chapter. 

But you could also consider Heckscher-Ohlin theory (Factor Proportions theory); Country similarity theory (in your case, Regions), and of course, Porter's national competitive advantage theory.

We hope these comments can help. 

Kind regards. 

The reviewers. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

the theoretical and empirical background as well as the the methodological approach need elaboration.

Particularly:

1) Lines 1-2. The discussion about agri-food export and farmers’ income is redundant. On the one hand, it requires deeper theoretical and conceptual debate and on the other hand, it has not been used later. Thus, lines 1-2 could be removed.

2) ) Lines 92-93. “based on the traditional measurement of trade competitiveness”. Which is  the traditional measurement of trade competitiveness?

3) According to lines 99-100, the paper aims to analyze the overall and classificatory competitiveness of Xinjiang’s agricultural products’ export throught the index of export sophistication. What is the economic theory behind this hypothesis? The objective does not seem built-in either economic theory or simple logic.

4) Lines 127-128. Which is the reason for selecting export sophistication measurement method to present the export structure and patern for products of the agricultural sector? For instance, manufacturing products or products of machinery and transportation equipment require sophisticated engineering knowledge and skills and therefore, in their occasion this measure could be useful. However, the products of the agricultural sector can not be characterized as sophisticated by their nature. You should justify the reason for the selection of the specific measure. 

5) Lines 151-154. There are many amendments of Harmonized System classification (from 1996 up to 2022). Why the authors used the 1992 revision?

6) Lines 155-164. The matching process is not well-explained. The author should state clearly how the Chinese customs data were converted into  the HS 1992 classification.

7) Line 343. “The conclusions of our study not confirm”.  It’s better to say “The findings of the study do not confirm”

8) Lines 415-419. Lines need elaboration. The reader is left confused. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors put up the commondable efforts and improved the manuscript in response to the comments. It is now acceptable in its present form. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments suggestions adequatelly replied.