Leading or Constraining? Development of New-Type Urbanization under Economic Growth Targets
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic of this paper is interesting, which is examining how economic growth goals affect the new urbanization. However, I am not optimistic about this paper for the following reason.
A main problem in this paper is that the measurement of new urbanization is a comprehensive indicator consisting of population, economic, social, space, ecological, and income gap in six dimensions, and then examines the impact of economic growth goals on new urbanization. However, using such a multi-dimensional indicator method to determine the explanatory variables can make it confusing which dimension exactly of the new urbanization affected by the economic growth goals, as the mechanisms between the economic growth target and six dimensions are totally different. The setting of such multidimensional indicators may not help to understand the impact mechanism of economic growth goals on new urbanization.
It is recommended that the author focus on a single indicator to measure new urbanization, or only focus on a certain dimension of new urbanization, use a single indicator to depict the dimension, and then examine the impact mechanism of economic growth goals on specific dimensions of new urbanization, rather than examining a comprehensive effect.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The document is supported by an extensive and up-to-date list of references.
It is well-written and structured.
A detailed analysis is made of the various aspects related to the topic of the paper.
The sample of the study is extensive.
The conclusions reached are interesting.
Recommendations:
The authors should explicitly state the reasons why this study can only be applied to developing countries and not to others.
The are some references missing in the text: 36, 39, 40 and 41
You should correct reference 42 to be in the same style as the others
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
It is an excellent and logical article with an impressive research design and results. The study provides suitable lessons for spatial governance, rural development, and urban planning. The new type of urbanization is relevant in other countries - the reviewer feels some sense of lack regarding the international relevance of the article, but it is not significant. - So, the article can even be published in its current form.
Author Response
We sincerely appreciate the positive feedback provided by the reviewer on our work. Regarding the issue of international relevance, we have made appropriate revisions to clarify our previous lack of definition in this aspect (P1, L22; P4, L143), hoping to make up for the deficiency of international relevance.
Reviewer 4 Report
I very much enjoyed reading your article and profited from your analysis, which struck me as nuanced and thoughtful. This said, I can offer two sorts of comments. The first are conceptual in character while the second have to do with organization of your piece. First, concerning conceptual matters, I was struck at how important the national government economic targets are for all else that follows, but you provide your readers no sense of how those are determined? Would it be possible to do so early in your piece? Secondly and related, you contend that competition among local government officials has too often resulted in a skewing of efforts at that scale to the simplistic pursuit of realization of economic indicators (e.g. GDP), a fact borne out, I think, by recent decades of experience in China. Has the national government shown any enduring awareness of this central perverse incentive by providing more nuanced behavioral incentives and do you know what factors have influenced local officials who have not followed it slavishly in the past? Were they simply removed or not promoted for following a balanced course, as you seem to imply? If so, why did they take the course they did (assuming of course, any did so)? What i think this question points up is that you have pressed your analysis of findings at a very high level of aggregation. That is, you find that too high a target rate can be pernicious but how do local leaders address that fact when it occurs or, indeed, prevent its occurrence? You also note, overall, that officials must balance the competing equities at play across the domains you examine, but you say nothing about the factors they must address and the criteria they might employ as they do so. These seem to be vexingly important concerns, if only for future research. Indeed, playing Devil's Advocate for a moment, one might even go so far as to suggest that you have pointed up an important set of tradeoffs while saying little about how those developing/implementing policies to address those might address them. If you wish to contend these are for future inquiry, perhaps developing a section concerning the need to do so as well as strategies of analysis might be useful. In this regard, you note, somewhat dryly, that government support of land acquisition and construction can be fruitful but that such efforts also confront an inverted U curve. Clearly, empirical reality suggests this has occurred, and often, exemplified by sprawl and "ghost" communities. So, what, if anything, have you learned in this analysis to address that difficult reality? Or does all depend on central officials setting more reasoned and reasonably administered macro targets?
As to the organization of your analysis, I wonder if you could provide a succinct definition of what constitutes "new-type urbanization" early and perhaps note how little that appears to differ from classic definitions and descriptions of what is needed to secure sustainability? If this is so, and I believe it to be based on your argument, my comments above concerning tradeoffs of various sorts at alternate analytic scales become conceptually and empirically relevant and it might be argued what you are doing here begins to acknowledge that terrain? Related to this broader point, what exactly do you mean by "institutional construction" on line 123? This would appear integral to every element of what might constitute suggest in this new framework? How will/do official make judgments among the competing claims you highlight in a vertically accountable governance framework? an you contextualize these realities early in your piece for your readers and suggest how your analysis fits within them?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Unfortunately, the author's explanation did not convince me. I firmly believe that using multidimensional indicators as the dependent variable in causal relationship research is a major flaw.
The purpose of government planning is to collaborate with different government departments to achieve policy goals.
But the variables in causal relationship research must be clearly defined, and the logic must be clear.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Overall, I think your revision works well. I note, parenthetically, that the following is not so much a definition, as a general description, of the aspirations of "new-type urbanization: "Starting from March 2014, the Chinese government implemented the "National New-54 Type Urbanization Plan (2014-2020)", which proposed the concept of "new-type urbanization." This approach emphasizes the coordinated development of the population, economy, society, and ecology with a focus on people, emphasizing livelihoods, quality, and sustainability." I do urge you to continue to examine the multiple non-economic effects this policy is creating and to do so with an eye to how much discretion regional and local officials are allowed to address their material conditions.
Author Response
Thank you for your affirmation and suggestions. Regarding the impact of economic growth goals on non-economic aspects, we have added more detailed explanations in the path mechanism test (Page18, Line650-660 *non-track version) and heterogeneity analysis (Page.20, Line719-725; p.21, L729-733 *non-track version) of the manuscript. The impact depends on the behavior preference ranking of local governments, which is largely influenced by central policies and incentives. In other words, although local governments have a certain degree of discretion in dealing with local affairs, central policies and incentives are the fundamental motivation for government actions. Therefore, the key to addressing improper behavior of local governments is to adjust and improve the relevant central institutional arrangements. We hope that our modifications and responses will satisfy you.
