Linking Inward Foreign Direct Investment to Innovative Entrepreneurship: The Mediating Role of Economic Institutions in Chinese Regions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of the manuscript is interesting. The manuscript is well written, but the following comments might help in adding value to it: 

Content and Contextualization:

The study is well-grounded in important theoretical and real-world literature.
The explanation of IFDI spillover effects is clear, but a stronger analysis would require delving deeper into policy impacts and comparing different countries.
Try tying the study’s results to current ideas about absorptive capacity and FDI spillovers to see where they match or differ.

Research Design, Questions, Hypotheses, and Methods:

The research setup works well, and the hypotheses are stated clearly.
Using fixed-effects regression models is well explained.
The variable choices make sense, but adding more about why the 2010-2018 period was chosen would help clarify things.
Consider adding more checks or different model setups to confirm findings.

Arguments and Discussion of Findings:

The arguments are logical and well thought out.
The parts about regional differences in IFDI spillover effects provide good insights.
It is helpful to discuss no significant effects in central and western China, but analyzing more profound institutional barriers would improve the analysis.

Presentation of Empirical Results:

The results are presented clearly and backed up by statistical analysis.
Try enhancing key findings with visuals (like graphs showing mediating effects) to help readers understand better.
Some tables could be more user-friendly with a more straightforward layout and more commentary.

Referencing:

The article has a good amount of supporting references.
Including recent studies on FDI spillovers in other growing markets would add to the global relevance of the findings.

Conclusions and Policy Implications:

The conclusions tie nicely with the empirical evidence.
The policy suggestions are relevant, but it would be helpful to explain them with more actionable steps for policymakers and business leaders.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language is generally clear and structured well.
There are minor grammatical and syntax errors; proofreading could improve readability.
Simplify some complex sentences for better clarity.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I personally find this to be a highly complete paper, with only a few minor issues that need to be addressed:

1. Introduction: The author lacks a comparison with existing literature, particularly in the second-to-last paragraph. What are the contributions of your study? How does it advance beyond similar papers published in recent years? These aspects need to be clearly explained.

2. Chapters 2 and 3: Both chapters essentially discuss the theoretical foundation of the study, including prior literature and hypotheses. Consider merging them, especially since Chapter 2 does not provide a review of a specific theory but merely addresses (a certain variable?). Presenting it as a standalone chapter seems unnecessary.

3. Figure 1: Consider reducing its size and ensuring clear labeling, as its current presentation is somewhat unclear.

4. Page 11: China has a total of 34 provinces. Excluding Tibet, there should be 33, not 30. Does your data include Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan? Please provide a detailed explanation. Clearly specifying which provinces are included is not only an academic concern but also a politically sensitive issue related to publication.

5. Table 3: Listing the Mean VIF is unnecessary; please remove it.

6. Implications section: This section still touches on the literature review. Please revise accordingly.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study examines the influence of inward foreign direct investment (IFDI) on innovative entrepreneurship across 30 Chinese provinces and three regions (eastern, central and western). Using nine years of panel data (2010-2018) and a fixed-effects model, it finds that economic institution is a pivotal link connecting IFDI and innovative entrepreneurship, and this link holds for eastern China, but not central and western regions.

The paper has following stengths:

1) The topic regarding the effects of IFDI on local economy is important. 

2) Paper's empirical analysis is well presented. 

Paper needs improvements in the following areas:

1) The introduction part should be revised to highlight the studies examining the effect of IFDI on the local economy, and differentiating how this paper is different from the related papers. 

At the end of the Introduction part, contribution paragraph(s) should be added to highlight the contributions of this paper. 

2) Part 2 and 3 should be combined to better reflect on the literature and to draw hypotheses.

3) Look if the hypotheses and related explanations can be written in a better form. 

4) The definition of marketization variable should be explained in a way to highlight how it will boost the effect of IFDI on IE. 

5) Results need better explanation why the relationship only holds in east and not in other parts. 

6) In discussions, you frequently use the word country(ries), when discussing the Chinese provinces. The explanation should be aligned to your sample. 

 

 

Though the paper's focus seems important, however the way the paper has been written doesn't represent the 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is well written from an econometric point of view, with a detailed methodology and the presentation of results and tests conducted.

On the other hand, some points can still be improved.

1. The References can be improved by citing the most recent literature. Some references are too old, which questions the originality of the work and the novelty of the findings.
2. The conceptual framework (Figure 1) does not reflect the model, particularly Equation 2. 
3. The paper is too focused on the case of China. This is fine, however, the discussions can be improved by taking a broader perspective (international) and implications.
4. The Conclusion section can be separated from the Discussion. Here, provide answers to all hypotheses.
5. Some texts/grammar can be improved. Ex. 'Descriptive Statistical' should be 'Descriptive/Summary Statistics'; spacing; 'Eqs' should be 'Eq' for citing one equation; 'hypotheses' for more than one hypothesis; 
6. Follow a uniform referencing: either numbered or Author (year).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf