Productive Specialization and Factor Endowments in Emerging Municipalities: A Comparative Analysis of Tunja and Chiquinquirá (2017–2021)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Please mention research gap. Reason for this is so we can say this research filled the gap in academy field and also than we can see why this paper is innovative, special or of great valued to practice and academy field.

Also, abstract need to have goals, research gap and contribution mentioned. Please rearrange all abstract.

Also , where is key word  HOS Model? Why is not mention?

Where is Literature review. This paper needs to have other studies mentioned in order to be good. Methodology can be better explained.

Why we are using this methods, and please explain all the methods. Where is the Limitation of this study? Also, recommendation for future research is missing as a subheading. 

Best regards,

Author Response

I would like to thank you in advance for your time and availability as a reviewer of my document. In response to your comments, I state the following:

Comment 1: Please mention research gap. Reason for this is so we can say this research filled the gap in academy field and also than we can see why this paper is innovative, special or of great valued to practice and academy field.

Response 1: The Commentresearch gap was explicitly included in the introduction, highlighting the limited application of the HOS model at the subnational level in developing country contexts. This allows the article to be positioned as a novel contribution both in the academic and practical fields.

Comment 2: Also, abstract need to have goals, research gap and contribution mentioned. Please rearrange all abstract.

Response 2: The abstract was completely restructured. It now clearly states the research objective, identifies the research gap, and outlines the main contributions of the study. The revised version provides a coherent summary aligned with academic standards and enhances the clarity and value of the work.

Comment 3: Also , where is key word  HOS Model? Why is not mention?

Response 3: The keyword “HOS Model” was added to the list of keywords to reflect the theoretical framework used in the analysis. This adjustment improves the visibility and thematic accuracy of the paper for academic indexing and retrieval.

Comment 4: Where is Literature review. This paper needs to have other studies mentioned in order to be good. Methodology can be better explained.

Response 4: A dedicated literature review section was added. It incorporates relevant studies on factor endowment theory, proxies for capital and labor, and prior applications of the HOS model at both national and subnational levels. The methodology section was also expanded to explain the rationale behind the selection of indicators, classification criteria, and analytical procedures.

Comment 5: Why we are using this methods, and please explain all the methods. Where is the Limitation of this study? Also, recommendation for future research is missing as a subheading.

Response 5: The methods section was revised to include justifications for each analytical step, particularly the use of capital-to-labor ratios and sectoral classification based on resource intensity. A new section on limitations was added, discussing data constraints, geographical scope, and measurement issues. Additionally, a subsection titled “Recommendations for Future Research” was included at the end of the paper, proposing comparative studies with broader territorial coverage and refined variable definitions.

I sincerely hope that the revised document meets your valuable recommendations. I remain at your disposal for any further comments or suggestions you may have.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please read the PDF.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. Below, we respond to each of your comments and describe the specific changes made in the revised version.

Comment 1. Limited Scope and Generalizability. Only two municipalities severely limits generalizability. Findings may not apply to other regions or contexts. 5-year period may be insufficient to capture structural changes.

Response 1: We acknowledge this limitation and have explicitly discussed it in the new subsection titled “Limitations and Future Research Directions.” While the current focus on Tunja and Chiquinquirá offers valuable insights, we recognize that the findings are not fully generalizable to other contexts. The five-year window is justified due to data availability and the analytical focus, but future studies are encouraged to use longer timeframes and broader territorial samples.

Comment 2. Capital proxy (total assets) may not accurately reflect productive capital stock. Labor measurement inconsistency between steps (EAP vs. formal employees).

Response 2: We addressed this in the Methodology section by explicitly justifying the use of total assets as a capital proxy and by clarifying that labor is measured through both the economically active population and the number of formal employees, depending on the analytical step. This dual approach is now explained as a methodological refinement that aligns with the objective of sectoral precision.

Comment 3. The research background and significance in the introduction are too brief and need to be strengthened.

Response 3: The Introduction section was substantially expanded to better contextualize the research problem. We incorporated recent literature on sustainable development and emerging markets and clarified the relevance of applying the HOS model at the subnational level in developing countries. This enhancement strengthens the study’s motivation and novelty.

Comment 4. No significance testing of differences between municipalities. Results lack statistical precision measures.

Response 4: We acknowledge the absence of formal significance testing and have addressed this in the Limitations section. The current study is exploratory in nature and aimed at constructing a conceptual and diagnostic framework. However, we recommend that future research include econometric techniques to test robustness and statistical significance.

Comment 5. HOS model lacks discussion of how market integration affects specialization patterns.

Response 5: We added a discussion in Section 2.3, where we address the assumptions of the HOS model—specifically, factor mobility and the absence of trade barriers. We explain how these assumptions are adapted in our subnational application and discuss their implications for market integration and internal specialization patterns.

Comment 6. Inconsistent decimal places and formatting across tables. Some tables lack clear unit specifications. Several zero values in tables need explanation (e.g., Table 4, mining sector 2019–2021).

Response 6: All tables were reviewed and reformatted to ensure consistency in decimal places. Unit specifications have been added where necessary, and explanations for zero values—particularly in the mining sector—are now included in the corresponding text sections to clarify data interpretation.

Comment 7. Results' robustness to different specifications not tested. Also, missing controls: No consideration of other factors affecting specialization.

Response 7: We recognize that the study did not include robustness checks or external control variables. This limitation is now clearly addressed in the revised version. Furthermore, the Limitations and Future Research section suggests incorporating contextual factors and robustness analysis in future studies to strengthen the empirical framework.

Content and Structure Issues

Comment 8. Limited analysis depth: Tables presented with minimal interpretation.

Response 8: The Results section has been expanded to provide deeper interpretation of the tables. We now offer detailed commentary on sectoral differences, factor intensities, and specialization patterns over time, linking these patterns back to the theoretical framework.

Comment 9. Missing comparisons: Insufficient comparison with national or regional benchmarks.

Response 9: Although our focus is on subnational differences, the revised Discussion section includes references to national trends in productive specialization and regional disparities, to provide contextual depth and interpretative support.

Comment 10. Policy implications: Weak connection between findings and specific policy recommendations.

Response 10: A new subsection titled “Policy Implications” was added. It outlines differentiated recommendations for each municipality, based on their factor endowment profiles. These recommendations focus on infrastructure, human capital, and specialization strategies tailored to each local context.

Comment 11. The current article structure lacks a literature review section. Of course, a review discussion can be conducted in the introduction, but it should not appear in the second paragraph of the introduction.

Response 11: We have included a dedicated section titled “Theoretical Framework,” which incorporates a formal literature review covering economic growth theories, productive specialization, and the HOS model. This restructuring improves coherence and academic rigor.

Comment 12. When discussing sustainable development, the latest literature can be used for discussion (e.g., [1], [2]).

Response 12: The revised version integrates the two references you suggested, along with other recent sources, to frame the study within current debates on sustainability and development in emerging markets.

Comment 13. Brief treatment: Discussion is relatively short for the complexity of findings. Limited critical analysis.

Response 13: The Discussion section was substantially expanded. It now includes a critical reflection on the limitations of applying the HOS model at the subnational level and addresses structural factors such as informality, institutional capacity, and dynamic learning processes that affect territorial specialization.

We sincerely hope that the revised manuscript now meets your expectations and academic standards. We remain fully available for any additional suggestions or clarifications.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Glad to see that all constructive suggestions were taken into account and implemented accordingly.

Best regards,

Author Response

I sincerely appreciate your thorough review and the favorable assessment of my article. Your observations reaffirm the relevance of the work and motivate me to continue strengthening its academic rigor.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All my questions have been resolved, and I recommend accepting this version.

Author Response

Thank you for your positive evaluation of the article and for the time dedicated to its review. I truly value your comments and suggestions, which will be essential to enrich and refine the manuscript.