The Impact of Economic Financialization on the Income Gap Between Urban and Rural Residents: Evidence from China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article's primary objective is to investigate the impact of economic financialization on the income gap between urban and rural residents in China. This aim is clearly stated and is appropriate given the contemporary discourse on income disparity. However, the clarity of the objective can be improved by emphasizing the specific hypotheses being tested and outlining the expected outcomes in a more structured manner. The authors should consider the possibility of such an improvement in the introductory part.

The article includes a literature review that discusses relevant studies and frameworks related to financialization and income distribution. While the review is adequate, it could benefit from a more comprehensive examination of recent literature, particularly studies published post-2020. The authors should consider the possibility of such an improvement.

The research utilizes panel data from 2003 to 2022, applying quantitative analysis to assess the relationship between financialization and the income gap. This methodology is appropriate for addressing the research questions posed. Nevertheless, clarifying the statistical techniques used for hypothesis testing and ensuring the robustness of the model would enhance methodological transparency. The authors should consider the possibility of such an improvement while discussing the research methodology and results gained.

The results of the research are generally based on the collected data and contribute meaningfully to the conclusions drawn. The presentation is adequate, utilizing tables and figures to illustrate findings clearly.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you very much!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study aims to examine the impact of economic financialization on the income gap between urban and rural residents using China's provincial data from 2003 to 2022. While some interesting findings were obtained, the authors have some work to do to improve the quality of the paper. My specific comments are as follows:

1. Please check whether the English expression of the title is accurate.
2. It is recommended that the abstract be written in accordance with the requirements of the journal.
3. To enhance the readability of the article, it is recommended that the writing be concise and avoid the use of long paragraphs and complex sentences.
4. It is suggested that the authors update the data and references cited in the article. Add more references from the past five years.
5. It is suggested that the results of Section 5 and Section 6 be integrated, and then a separate section be written for discussion.
6. More discussion of the results is needed. The discussion should be refined in the following ways:
   • Clarify what problems are solved by the main results and what theories and principles are involved;
   • Compare the results with previous related studies to highlight the similarities and differences, thereby emphasizing the novelty of this research;
   • Discuss the general value of the research findings and identify other areas where they could be applied in relevant practices.
7. Limitations and directions for future research can be included in the Discussion section.
8. There are quite a few instances of grammatical errors and repetitive sentences in the article, such as in lines 397-398. I recommend that a native English speaker review the language and grammar.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

1. To enhance the readability of the article, it is recommended that the writing be concise and avoid the use of long paragraphs and complex sentences.
2. There are quite a few instances of grammatical errors and repetitive sentences in the article, such as in lines 397-398. I recommend that a native English speaker review the language and grammar.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the abstract we should have a global vision of the proposal dom paper and what we can read is just a reflection on the problem. The abstract should be completely revised.

It should contain an introduction to the topic and the problem, the methodology implemented, the sample involved and the main conclusions. The introduction is clear and objective, nothing to mention. The same goes for the literature review, which seems to be consistent and provides adequate support for the paper, although the references are not very up-to-date. In the Mechanisms and Hypotheses section, there is an objective presentation of the choice made and it is possible to understand the reasons for presenting the 3 hypotheses that guided the paper's proposal. Section 4 is also clear and gives coherence to the proposal. Section 5 provides good statistical support that gives confidence to the data presented. The same goes for section 6, which gives robustness and reliability to the paper's proposal. The conclusions are clear, objective and assertive given the theoretical and practical support provided.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. The study tackles an important and timely issue by examining the impact of financialization on the income gap between urban and rural residents in China. The topic is well aligned with the scope of Sustainability, and the article presents a well-structured discussion supported by robust empirical analysis. However, there are several areas where the manuscript could be significantly improved to enhance its clarity, coherence, and overall contribution.

The introduction is well-written and sets the stage for the research, but some sentences are pretty long and complex, making it difficult to follow the main arguments. A revision for fluency and clarity would improve readability. While the hypotheses are well-defined, the study would benefit from a more precise articulation of its original contribution—what does it add to the existing literature beyond confirming previous findings? Given the extensive work on financialization and inequality, highlighting the novelty of the approach or results would strengthen the impact of the study.

The thorough literature review covers different perspectives on financialization and income distribution. However, in some sections, it feels overly descriptive. A more synthesized discussion, with a more explicit connection to the research gaps addressed in this study, would make the review more impactful. The methodology is rigorous, and the use of provincial data from 2003-2022, along with econometric techniques such as Bartik IV and spatial models, is commendable. However, some methodological choices - particularly selecting the Theil Index as the primary measure of inequality - could be justified more explicitly, perhaps by briefly comparing it to alternative indicators. The explanation of Bartik IV, while valuable, might not be fully accessible to a broader readership. Providing a more intuitive rationale for its use could improve comprehension.

The results are well presented and thoroughly discussed, but the discussion section could be better integrated with the literature. Currently, the findings are mainly presented as standalone empirical results. Relating them more explicitly to prior studies - clarifying whether they confirm, contradict, or extend existing knowledge - would strengthen the paper's contribution. Additionally, while the policy implications are relevant, they remain general. More concrete recommendations on how financial policies could be adjusted to mitigate the urban-rural income gap without stifling economic growth would enhance the practical relevance of the study.

There are also some minor issues related to formatting and language. Some phrases are repetitive, and the text would benefit from careful proofreading to improve fluency. Given the strong theoretical and empirical foundation of this research, a more polished and engaging presentation would make it more compelling. The title, too, could be refined to better reflect the study's key contribution.

Overall, this is a valuable manuscript with a strong foundation, but it requires significant revisions to improve its clarity, depth of discussion, and articulation of contributions. I recommend a Major Revision and look forward to seeing an improved version of this promising work.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript presents a well-structured and academically rigorous discussion, but the quality of the English language requires improvement. Some sentences are overly complex and challenging to follow, which affects readability. There are also instances of awkward phrasing, repetitive expressions, and minor grammatical errors. A thorough proofreading and revision for fluency, clarity, and conciseness would significantly enhance the manuscript. Consider simplifying sentence structures and ensuring precise word choice to improve the overall readability. Engaging a professional language editor or a native English-speaking colleague for final polishing is highly recommended.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting paper. Using China's provincial data from 2003-2022 to comprehensively evaluate the degree of economic financialization, the article examines the impact of economic financialization on the income gap between urban and rural residents. The conclusions are entirely based on the research results. During data processing, correlation statistical methods were used, along with empirical and regression analysis. The data revealed the impact of financialization of the economy and the income gap between urban and rural residents. The research was conducted with partial support from the National Social Science Fund of China. This article basically meets the requirements of this journal, but the following modifications are still needed:

（1）Abstract: The abstract should be a total of about 200 words maximum!

（2）There are too many keywords, please delete some of them.

（3）Introduction：The introduction lacks argumentation on the research topic and objectives, does not propose research hypotheses, and does not provide the structure and research highlights of the article.

（4）The topic "2. Literature Review" should not be mentioned in the article structure. Read the instructions for authors: "The structure should include an Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions (optional) sections.". Some parts of this topic may be used in the discussion of the results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made careful revisions based on the reviewers' comments. After reading the revised manuscript and the authors’ response, I believe that the quality of the paper has been significantly improved and can be accepted for publication.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the authors' efforts in revising the manuscript. They have addressed all of my previous comments and incorporated the suggested changes appropriately. The manuscript has been improved where possible, and I find the current version suitable for publication. I have no further suggestions for improvement.