Measuring and Decomposing Relative Poverty in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is relentless in its approach, methodological development, and presentation of results. However, finding a clear and direct connection with the main issues addressed in this Journal is difficult.

This paper could find a better audience in a Journal whose scope is directly related to poverty measurement issues. 

Alternatively, develop a direct connection with some of the central themes addressed in this Journal. For example, to delve into the effects of the abolition of agricultural taxes on improving farmers' incomes. In addition, the analysis of changes in fiscal policy can be an excellent way to explain its impact on the reduction of absolute poverty in China and the emergence of relative poverty in that country during the analysis period (1989-2015). The paper raises this idea in an embryonic form (see pg 7; lines 242-245). However, it is not central to this research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper on “Measuring and Decomposing Relative Poverty in China” aims to measure relative poverty in China in the last decades. The topic is relevant and shows the importance of relative poverty measurements compared to absolute poverty measurements. However, the paper would require significant improvements to be considered for publication:

 

-        The language would require a complete revision. In particular, try to shorten the often very long and not understandable sentences. For example, the second part of the abstract is not easy to understand.

-        The paper starts by stating the importance of relative poverty measurements, but does not cover a holistic understanding of relative poverty that links to household assets, housing - and its link to multiple deprivations.

-        Please try to avoid vague statements such as on P. 1 “(…) and there are some short-comings in the decomposition process”.

-        Or stating that you have difficulties explaining “(…) 2021b), but it is difficult to explain what component the residual term is.” (P. 2)

-        Introduction needs to be much more concise. Introduce the main concepts and move parts to the methodology section.

-        Line 78 etc: It is not entirely clear what the 3 approaches are – I would suggest using bullets to clarify this! 

-        I think what you measure is not the “Weak relative poverty line” but that “Weakly relative poverty line”. Please check and clarify!

-        Also about language, please avoid statements such as “Ravallion & Chen(2019) believe…” – they state or stress – not believe.

-        Section 2.1, there are two equations with the number 1. For the first equation, please add the source.

-        Section 2.1, why is the average and not the median income used?

-        Line 151: Why do you write “3!”

-        Generally, please check the formatting instructions of the journal about the use of footnotes, table captions etc

-        Generally, the methodology needs to be better explained, as well as the reason why only data until 2015 are used.

-        In the result section, avoid vague and/or unclear statements, e.g., “Although the data results may have a limited effect on the current economic forecast, it is still a good analysis sample for exploring the relevant laws and properties of relative poverty.”(L. 183)

-        Table 1 etc., please explain why the minimum income is negative

-        Tables in general, many of the tables might be better moved to an annexe. Furthermore, improve the formatting of the tables to make them more readable.

-        Figures in general, the colour and layout of the figures need to be improved. Please also add the units to all figures.

-        Result sections in general: The results need to be presented much more concisely and again avoiding vague statements (e.g., “urbanisation process can reduce relative poverty to a certain extent” (L. 595)).

-        Generally, for the conclusions, I would suggest adding some more quantitative findings.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for the interesting article!

I'd suggest adding and expanding the discussion for the findings especially considering the increasing inequalities in income. Also, please add implications and limitations of the findings.

For instance, on p.13, lines 372-380, you did porvide some explanantions for some findings, but you did not do the same for the following results in the same way. So, adding the discussions/implications would help the readers to understand the context and importance of the findings.

This would also help to clarify the importance of the paper considering that you you have mentioned that "the data results may have a limited effect on 183 the current economic forecast, it is still a good analysis sample for exploring the relevant laws and properties of relative poverty".  (p.3 lines 183-185). 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript presents a limited literature review (only 22 bibliographic references). Therefore, an academic article must consider a more extensive literature review (at least 50 pieces), focussing on documents published in recent years in high-impact academic journals.

Typographical errors need further revision. The English wording, in the modifications and changes recently added to this new version, deserves attention. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx