Measurement of Free Trade Zones’ Investment Attraction: Sustainable Corporate Development Perspective
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis submission investigates the investment attraction of Free Trade Zones (FTZs) in China through a framework that integrates principles of sustainable corporate development. The topic is timely because sustainability is becoming a critical consideration for investment decisions globally and, even more improtantly, understanding how FTZs align with these priorities does contribute to both academic literature and policy discussions.
I truly enjoyed reading this piece because it presents a strong main argument for evaluating FTZs’ investment attractiveness, using five core indicators: urban business environment, economic development strength, innovation and openness, environmental sustainability and high-quality enterprise growth. It employs an entropy weight method to balance the contribution of each indicator, ensuring objective assessment. The piece focuses on China’s FTZs, analysing regional differences and highlighting that areas like East and South China outperform others in attracting investment. The findings underscore the variability in the performance of FTZs, with innovation and high-quality enterprise development emerging as relatively weaker aspects.
There are many good things in this paper which I cannot list here. Despite its many strengths and the potentially significant impact of the paper, it is imperative to address a few issues and shortcomings to bolster the revised article before publication in the Sustainability. This is what I must focus on.
I- Firstly, concerning style and form, there are a few typographical errors and syntax mistakes. While not egregious, rectifying these factors would enhance the clarity.
· Line 72: “And these factors are all related to the sustainability” I think that starting a sentence with “And” is informal. Consider rephrasing to “These factors are closely related to the sustainability.”
· Line 75: “In terms of sustainable corporate development, several factors could be integrated into the evaluation model.” Replace “could be” with “can be” for a more assertive tone?
· Line 79: “enterprises that prioritize environmental stewardship often enjoy enhanced operational efficiency”. Style, consider changing “enhanced” to “greater” to avoid redundancy with “efficiency.”
· Line 115: “by considering the amount of information provided by each index”
Consider rephrasing to “by evaluating the information provided by each index” for clarity.
· Line 132: Inconsistent formatting in equations. Ensure consistent styling for better readability.
· Line 219: “objectively speaking, innovation and opening-up vitality has the highest weight” Replace “objectively speaking” with “objectively” to avoid verbosity.
II- Now, shifting to substance, I feel that there are three issues that the authors must address to strengthen the article for publication:
Firstly, the paper does not well enough justify the selection of specific sub-indicators used in the evaluation model, such as particular measures for business environment or innovation. Although it lists indicators like AQI and the number of listed companies, it lacks a detailed rationale for why these metrics best capture sustainable investment attraction in the context of FTZs. A more thorough review of existing literature could guide a clearer alignment between these metrics and the sustainability criteria being assessed. Including a discussion on why each indicator was chosen would strengthen the conceptual aspect of the evaluation framework. This could also involve comparisons with similar studies to ensure that the model addresses gaps in existing approaches. This gap weakens the empirical contributions of the paper, which could be strengthened by citing literature that examines how SEZs facilitate the transition to high-tech, low-carbon industries, as seen in the UN-ESCAP Handbook on Policies, Promotion and Facilitation of Foreign Direct Investment for Sustainable Development in Asia and the Pacific (UN-ESCAP, Handbook on Policies, Promotion and Facilitation of Foreign Direct Investment for Sustainable Development in Asia and the Pacific, https://www.unescap.org/resources/handbook-policies-promotion-and-facilitation-foreign-direct-investment-sustainable-0).
Second, the paper suffers from a lack of engagement with recent, critical literature on Special Economic Zones (SEZs), which greatly diminishes its theoretical robustness. For example, the influential 2019 UNCTAD report on SEZs, which offers valuable insights into their global economic and environmental impacts, is not cited at all (UNCTAD, 2019, World Investment Report 2019: Special Economic Zones. https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/wir2019_en.pdf). Furthermore, the omission of key works from leading journals, such as the World Trade Review and the Journal of International Economic Law, weakens the paper’s engagement with contemporary discussions on SEZs as mechanisms of unilateral economic law. For instance, the article by Chaisse and Dimitropoulos (2021) in Journal of International Economic Law provides an in-depth analysis of SEZs as instruments of international law, which could significantly enrich the current paper’s discussion of FTZs (Julien Chaisse & Georgios Dimitropoulos, 2021, Special Economic Zones in International Economic Law: Towards Unilateral Economic Law, Journal of International Economic Law, 24(2), 229–257, https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgab025).
Third, the methodology relies heavily on the entropy weight method, which, while systematic, introduces certain limitations in interpreting the indicators’ impact. This method assumes that greater variability in data implies greater importance, but it may overlook underlying factors influencing these variations. This could lead to an overemphasis on areas with more dynamic changes rather than steady performers. The authors should explain this to clearly identify the limits of the scope of the paper.
Lastly, the paper’s regional analysis could be expanded for a finer understanding of geographical disparities in investment attraction. Yes, the paper provides scores for different regions and notes that East China outperforms others but it does not look into the reasons behind such variations in detail. For instance, the discussion could explore specific policy initiatives, economic conditions, or historical factors that contribute to the superior performance of regions like Guangdong and Shanghai. a gap that could be addressed by engaging with key works such as Zeng (2021), who discusses the historical evolution and future challenges of SEZs, and Chaisse (2021), who analyses their intersections with international investment agreements and investor-state dispute settlement (Douglas Z. Zeng, 2021, The Past, Present, and Future of Special Economic Zones and Their Impact, Journal of International Economic Law, 24(2), 259–275, https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgab014; Julien Chaisse, 2021, Dangerous Liaisons: The Story of Special Economic Zones, International Investment Agreements, and Investor–State Dispute Settlement, Journal of International Economic Law, 24(2), 443–471, https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgab015). Moreover, Manjiao Chi’s 2021 study on the regulation of SEZs through regional trade agreements would offer important insights into how FTZ policies might align or conflict with international trade norms (Manjiao Chi, 2021, Regulation of Special Economic Zones Through Regional Trade Agreements: Confronting the Synergy Issue, Journal of International Economic Law, 24(2), 423–442, https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgab016). This would make the findings more insightful and offer more targeted recommendations for policymakers aiming to enhance investment attraction in underperforming areas. Supplementary data or literature on regional policy differences could be useful additions to this analysis.
Overall, I recommend a revision level that lies between minor and major. My report is a bit long. This is not a sign of massive criticism. Rather, it is the opposite. I read the paper a few times. It has great potential. I tried to be as specific as possible in my feedback. The foundational structure, argumentation, and analysis within the paper are commendably solid. However, the specific areas highlighted above require attention and improvement. The recommendations provided are detailed and targeted, aiming to facilitate a straightforward revision process for the author. I believe these adjustments are not overly burdensome and can significantly elevate the paper’s quality and impact. I would be pleased to review a revised version of the manuscript when ready.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article is designed to evaluate the measurement of free trade zones’ investment attraction from a sustainable corporate development perspective.
1. The overall methodology and procedures were valid, but the ABSTRACT should be re-summarized as there are no summarized conclusions and proper significant implications.
2. Furthermore, I have some questions to be resolved as follows.
(1) What is the main research intention and objective of this paper? Is it a review and prospect of the free trade zones’ investment attraction? Why? How did you do the reserch?
(2) What is the article type of this paper? This paper is not a review article or a research article? Why? How did you do the review article? Or how you did you do the research article?
(3) We are aimed to do a review article or a research article with the clearresearch context in the academic publishing, but I am not sure whether the authors had clearly displayed the research context in this paper. If so, what is the real research context in this paper?
(4) What is the original data (/datasets)? Please show us all the raw data and their origins for reviewers (/readers).
(5) What is the main research result and the resulted data (/datasets)? Please show us all the resulted data for reviewers (/readers).
(6) In Table 1 (Evaluation index system for free trade zone investment attraction), do the evaluation index system and indicators come from the governmental sources?
(7) Why the "Sources" in Table 1 showed the governmental websites?
(8) In Table 1, why there are only two grades of the evaluation indicators showed? What significance did the data of these two grades' indicators mean?
3. Compare your results with alternative methods: Applying the other econometric techniques would allow for a more thorough evaluation of the findings. This comparison can help confirm whether the results are consistent and not overly dependent on a single method.
4. Include robustness checks: I recommend to include robustness checks. This could involve utilizing different samples, or applying different model specifications, and demonstrating that the results hold under these varied conditions.
5. Clarify methodological choices: While there has been some improvement in the language and clarity of the manuscript, I would encourage the authors to provide more detailed justification for the choice of the primary method. This would help address any remaining concerns about potential biases or limitations associated with the method used.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNot applicable
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsOverall, the authors have made good effort in preparing the manuscript. However, there are several areas need revision to improve clarity and enhance the overall impact of the study.
1. Abstract
The abstract is well-written, but it should include a mention of the main methods used in the analysis.
2. Introduction
The key points and arguments would benefit from clarification, particularly regarding the research problem and question, which currently lack focusing. Strengthening the introduction with a clearer link between Free Trade Zones’ investment attraction and the research question would provide a more cohesive foundation for the study.
3. literature review
The literature review needs a connection between the identified gaps and the specific research objectives of the current study. The section is compressed and lacks a clear focus. It would benefit from a more thorough identification of literature gaps to contextualize the study's objectives.
4. Methods
The study utilizes the entropy weight method, which good; however, further elaboration needed to justify its application, discussing both its advantages and limitations. Additionally, supporting this choice with references to provide readers with a clearer understanding of its appropriateness with the study data.
5. Results
Results presentation is well done, but need to give more emphasis on discussing the findings. Provide justifications for the variations observed across the different zones in China, and support your argument with previous studies.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe revised manuscript addresses previous feedback and demonstrates very good improvements. Typographical errors have been corrected, and the arguments are well-integrated. The justifications for the chosen indicators are now clear and robust. The engagement with relevant literature has been significantly strengthened. Serious work. I recommend the article for publication.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have addressed the revisions in a satisfactory manner
