How Does Digital Financial Inclusion Affect Rural Land Transfer? Evidence from China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper explores the impact of digital financial inclusion (DFI) on land transfer in rural China, revealing the mechanisms through which DFI promotes land transfer via two pathways: non-agricultural entrepreneurship and commercial insurance participation. It has certain theoretical and practical significance. However, the paper also has the following issues:

1.Similar studies have already been published in related papers. Therefore, in the introduction section, it is necessary to emphasize the importance and urgency of conducting this study and to explain in detail its innovation and contribution.

2.Check all citations and references thoroughly to avoid errors such as “[Error! Reference 36 source not found.,7].”

3.In the literature review section, the current work is not comprehensive enough, particularly in terms of omitting the spatial spillover effects between neighboring households. Existing empirical studies based on CFPS data have shown that there are spatial spillover effects between neighboring households in rural areas in terms of land transfers and other aspects. However, this paper does not include a literature review or analysis of this aspect. Therefore, it is necessary to supplement this section with relevant references.

4.The color scheme in the figure could be optimized. It is recommended to use different fill colors to distinguish between different variables, as the current scheme is confusing.

5.In the hypothesis development section, more relevant references need to be added and cited for elaboration and explanation. Currently, due to the limited number of relevant references cited, the argument lacks persuasiveness.

6.In empirical models, the spillover effects between neighbors are not examined, which can easily lead to biased estimates. Therefore, it is recommended to use spatial econometric models that examine neighbor effects for regression and estimation.The lack of examination of neighbor spillover effects is a fatal flaw in this paper.

7.In the data section, the number of samples for each year should be disclosed, along with an explanation of whether the data is balanced panel data or unbalanced panel data.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

For research article

Manuscript ID: land-3784242

Manuscript Title: How Does the Digital Financial Inclusion Affect Rural Land Transfer? Evidence from China

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Firstly, we appreciate the suggestions of the anonymous reviewers. Based on these suggestions, the manuscript has been revised carefully. Our specific responses to the reviewers’ comments are as follows.

Thank you again for your valuable comments and suggestions, they are our valuable experience, which have helped us a lot to improve the quality of our study, we have learned a lot! Please find the detailed responses below and the corrections highlighted in the resubmitted files

Comments 1: Similar studies have already been published in related papers. Therefore, in the introduction section, it is necessary to emphasize the importance and urgency of conducting this study and to explain in detail its innovation and contribution. Response 1: Agree. Thank you for your helpful suggestions. We are grateful for your guidance on emphasizing the study's significance and clarifying its innovative contributions. As requested, we have substantively revised the manuscript to address this. The revised Introduction now explicitly elaborates on the innovative dimensions of this work and its scholarly contributions in the later paragraphs of Section 1. Introduction (L120-151). All the modifications are marked as yellow in the revised manuscript.

Comments 2: Check all citations and references thoroughly to avoid errors such as “[Error! Reference 36 source not found.,7].” Response 2: Agree. Thank you very much for your comments on the details of the references in the manuscript. We have thoroughly checked all the citations and references to prevent any situation where references were not found. All the modifications are marked as yellow in the revised manuscript.

Comments 3: In the literature review section, the current work is not comprehensive enough, particularly in terms of omitting the spatial spillover effects between neighboring households. Existing empirical studies based on CFPS data have shown that there are spatial spillover effects between neighboring households in rural areas in terms of land transfers and other aspects. However, this paper does not include a literature review or analysis of this aspect. Therefore, it is necessary to supplement this section with relevant references. Response 3: Agree. Thank you for pointing out the insufficiency of the literature review in this manuscript. Based on your suggestions, we have collected more relevant literature and conducted a systematic literature review and analysis to improve the content of the literature review. Through a systematic literature review, this study establishes Section 2.3 as a dedicated analytical framework examining the spatial spillover dynamics between rural land transfer systems and digital financial inclusion within the context of village-level economic transformation (L292-319). All the modifications are marked as yellow in the revised manuscript.

Comments 4: The color scheme in the figure could be optimized. It is recommended to use different fill colors to distinguish between different variables, as the current scheme is confusing. Response 4: Agree. Thank you for your suggestions on the color schemes of the pictures in the text. We have filled all the pictures with different colors to make it easier for readers to read and understand clearly and avoid confusion (L429,L440,L466,L547). All the modifications are marked as yellow in the revised manuscript.

Comments 5: In the hypothesis development section, more relevant references need to be added and cited for elaboration and explanation. Currently, due to the limited number of relevant references cited, the argument lacks persuasiveness. Response 5: Agree. Thank you very much for your valuable comments. In the section on hypothesis formation, the article does indeed suffer from insufficient references. Based on the submitted manuscript, we have further supplemented and cited more references to argue the article's hypothesis and enhance its persuasiveness (L572-L666). All the modifications are marked as yellow in the revised manuscript.

Comments 6: In empirical models, the spillover effects between neighbors are not examined, which can easily lead to biased estimates. Therefore, it is recommended to use spatial econometric models that examine neighbor effects for regression and estimation. The lack of examination of neighbor spillover effects is a fatal flaw in this paper. Response 6: Agree. Thank you for your valuable feedback. Your comments have helped us further improve the quality of our research and have been of great benefit to us. We have used the SDM model to further examine the spatial spillover effects of digital inclusive finance on rural land transfers, presenting these findings as a separate section in section 9. Further Analysis. This additional content makes the manuscript more comprehensive and adds deeper policy implications (L1003-L1046). Thank you again! All the modifications are marked as yellow in the revised manuscript.

Comments 7: In the data section, the number of samples for each year should be disclosed, along with an explanation of whether the data is balanced panel data or unbalanced panel data. Response 7: Agree. Thank you very much for your comments on the details of the data in the article. We have provided a more detailed explanation of the data types in Section 5.1 of the article and disclosed the sample size for each year to enhance the validity and persuasiveness of the data samples (L694-L698). All the modifications are marked as yellow in the revised manuscript.

Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Response 1: Thank you for your feedback. We have systematically improved the English manuscript through the following steps: (1) Grammar Refinement: Utilized Grammarly Premium software to rectify syntactic errors and enhance sentence clarity. (2) Expert Polishing: Collaborated with a native British scholar specializing in development economics to refine academic phrasing, ensuring compliance with international publishing standards. (3) Red-Font Annotations: All revisions made during the polishing process have been marked in red bold text to facilitate transparent review. These enhancements significantly improve the precision of theoretical frameworks and empirical analyses, ensuring alignment with Land style guidelines.

 

Special thanks to you for your valuable comments and suggestions, which have helped us further improve the quality of our study! We learned a lot! Thanks again!

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments and Suggestions:

1. lines 2-3: title of essay is somewhat awkwardly punctuated with a question mark and the wording. I suggestion something like: "How DOES the Digital Financial Inclusion Affect Rural Land Transfer? Evidence from China. OR, "How the Digital Financial Inclusion Affects Rural land Transfer: evidence from China. I hope this is clear.
2. line 9: since "rural land transfer" is central to the paper, some definition and clarification of what is meant should be provided. Do you mean the sale of farms to other farmers? the state? private farm corporations? etc. Is it part of a consolidation of tiny farms to make larger farms? etc. 
3. lines 9-10: how does rural land transfer "optimize agricultural resources and advance rural revitalization? Key claims to essay that should be explained in Abstract--briefly--and more so in the body of the article.
4. line 10: "limited financial access" needs to be clarified; what causes such limitation to the average farmer? Should be indicated briefly in the Abstract.
5. line 13: "digital financial inclusion" needs to be clarified since central to the discussion.
6. line 14: how does "digital financial inclusion expand non-agricultural entrepreneurship?"
7. line 20: "empower smallholders" to do what? Need to state here.
8. line 22-23: "inclusive development?" What does this term mean? Need to explain for nonspecialist reader.
9. line 28: good first sentence.
10. line 36-37: must provide source here remove "error" notice.
11. lines 38-39: how does rural land transfer "free up labor?" Do you mean farmers selling farm and entering. labor market doing non-farm labor? Should indicate here.
12. lines 41-42: "appropriately scaled farming operations?" Do you mean LARGER farms to overcome problems with China's tiny farms? Need to state and discuss.
13. lines 44-45: "rural land transfer . . . enhances agricultural efficiency and meeting the demands of modernization." Big claims here that require supporting evidence to be rationally persuasive.
14. line 50: end of paragraph. Much borrowed facts and ideas in this paragraph that are cited to their source. Therefore, a source citation needed here for these borrowed ideas and facts.
15. line 67: "sophisticated digital tools enable farm consolidation." Need examples of such tools here.
16. lines 64-65: "DFI platforms help bridge the urban-rural information gap." How? How will DFI inform rural resident farm owners who will likely be computer illiterate? Need to explain this claim and defend it with supporting evidence to make it rationally persuasive.
17. line 82: DFI promotes non-agricultural entrepreneurship? How? Should discuss how rural farmer's employability will be enhanced by DFI. Will it overcome little education? How?
18. line 90: reference is made to "heterogeneity of these effects." Some example of the alleged effects needed here to be clearer and more rationally useful.
19. line 98: DFI will "promote more orderly rural land transfers." How? should discuss here to be rationally useful.
20. line 108: discusses section three that defines core concepts like DFI: should be moved into Introduction so that the reader knows what you mean by these key concepts from the beginning of the paper and not wait until section three.
21. line 125: footnote #14 is missing since the notes proceed from #13 to #15. Check for missing note and make sure all the succeeding notes are not incorrect.
22. lines 127-128: "micro-foundation . . . influences macroeconomic performance." How? need to discuss to be rationally useful and clear beyond mere source citation.
23. line 136: What is entrepreneurship in rural farming in China? Never explained yet referred to throughout.
24. lines 139-143: this paragraph has several claims about DFI, for example, promoting consumption, improving inter-temporal resource allocation, reduces psychological cost of transactions, and enhances household consumption elasticity, etc. without any explanations, examples, or supporting evidence. Such essays need to do more than merely make claims, but must explain and defend them to be rationally persuasive.
25. lines 158-169: once again, several claims are made in this paragraph about what DFI can do, like "exhibit more efficient operational mechanisms," etc. which clarifying explanation and examples and supporting evidence to be rationally persuasive.
26. line 173: mentions a potential undermining of the thesis: "disparities in digital literacy." How will this barrier to the authors' argument be overcome with DFI? Need to discuss.
27. lines 175-178: borrowed ideas and alleged facts here need a source citation.
28. line 219: "rural financial repression" needs to be clarified and explained and defended to be rationally useful.
29. line 228: need new paragraph before the word: "First."
30. section 3.1.1 "clarification of central concept for essay DFI should occur earlier in the discussion; in the Introduction section.
31. lines 255-259: definition of key concept of DFI should occur earlier in the discussion and the source for these borrowed ideas provided.
32. line 260: new paragraph needed before the words: "This paradigm."
33. lines 274-283: history of DFI in China is good provide and the source is provided at the end of the paragraph. Good work here.
34. lines287-305: two paragraphs on phases 2 and 3 of DFI history in China require source citations for the borrowed ideas and facts. Be more careful about the need for all borrowed ideas and facts properly being cited to their sources.
35. Figure 1:good visual presentation of data. 
36. line 323: for some people geographical locations are capitalized, such as "Western" and "Northeastern" regions. Keep in mind throughout paper and journal practice.
37. end of paragraph on p. 8: no mention is made of the recent property value downturn in China making real estate values lower and contributing to slowing economic growth. Since this is a history of rural economy, such an important development would seem to be worthy of mention and discussion. 
38. section 3.2.1: should define RLT, rural land transfer, earlier in the discussion; I think in the Introduction section.
39. line 379: subsection heading: "Phase I:" should be moved to the next page to be spatially coherent with the text for this section. 
40. line 380: "China's planned economy era" does not have the years involved. Are you thinking of 1949-1976 under Mao? Should indicate years of this phase.
41. Three paragraphs referring to three phases of rural land transfer all are missing source citations for the borrowed ideas and facts. Need here to make the claims rationally useful. 
42. whole section of current status of RLT is lacking any source citations. This detracts from the value of the research reported here. Be more careful about providing source citations for borrowed ideas and data.
43. line 483: DFI is claimed to enhance financial literacy: how? not clear.
44. paragraphs following Hypothesis 2, pp. 12-13: lack any source citations.
45. lines 580 - 618: good to provide definitions of key concepts within theoretical framework. 
46. line 644: move Table 1 to next page so the whole table is one page and more coherent spatially. 
47. move Table 2 to next page to be spatially coherent with the rest of the Table.
48. move Table 5 title to next page to be together with the data for the Table. 
49. line 777: "non-agricultural ventures" are mentioned throughout the paper without providing examples. Should provide earlier. 
50. lines 862-864: should attempt to theorize an explanation for the alleged phenomena about DFI and different income groups. 
51. line 870: "market players?" farmers.     This is a good essay and research that would be enhanced greatly with further explanations of several points made and sources provided for all borrowed facts and data. Also, keep tables coherent on each page and move definitions to earlier in the discussion. When these corrections are made, I think the essay is worthy of publication.

Author Response

For research article

Manuscript ID: land-3784242

Manuscript Title: How Does the Digital Financial Inclusion Affect Rural Land Transfer? Evidence from China

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Firstly, we appreciate the suggestions of the anonymous reviewers. Based on these suggestions, the manuscript has been revised carefully. Our specific responses to the reviewers’ comments are as follows.

Thank you again for your valuable comments and suggestions, they are our valuable experience, which have helped us a lot to improve the quality of our study, we have learned a lot! Please find the detailed responses below and the corrections highlighted in the resubmitted files.

Comments 1: lines 2-3: title of essay is somewhat awkwardly punctuated with a question mark and the wording. I suggestion something like: "How DOES the Digital Financial Inclusion Affect Rural Land Transfer? Evidence from China. OR, "How the Digital Financial Inclusion Affects Rural land Transfer: evidence from China. I hope this is clear.

Response 1: Agree. Thank you very much for your suggestions regarding the punctuation and wording of the article title. Upon re-examining our title, we found that the issues raised by the reviewer were indeed present, so we have revised it (L2-L3). The current title is: How Does Digital Financial Inclusion Affect Rural Land Transfer? Evidence from China. All the modifications are marked as yellow in the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 2: line 9: since "rural land transfer" is central to the paper, some definition and clarification of what is meant should be provided. Do you mean the sale of farms to other farmers? the state? private farm corporations? etc. Is it part of a consolidation of tiny farms to make larger farms? etc.

Response 2: Agree. Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have clarified the concept of “rural land transfer” based on the original text and explained it in the introduction (L38-L41). Rural land transfer denotes the process wherein farm households maintain ownership and contractual rights, yet convey the management rights of their contracted cultivated land to new-type agricultural operation entities via market-oriented contractual agreements, and this content is described in more detail in section 3.2.1. All the modifications are marked as yellow in the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 3: lines 9-10: how does rural land transfer "optimize agricultural resources and advance rural revitalization? Key claims to essay that should be explained in Abstract--briefly--and more so in the body of the article.

Response 3: Agree. Thank you for your comments on the details of the abstract. We have added supplementary explanations to the abstract (L9-L11). Farmers' land transfer practices optimize the allocation of agricultural resources by transferring them to more efficient operators. This enhances agricultural productivity and advances rural revitalization. All the modifications are marked as yellow in the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 4: line 10: "limited financial access" needs to be clarified; what causes such limitation to the average farmer? Should be indicated briefly in the Abstract.

Response 4: Agree. Thank you for pointing out this question. We have provided a more detailed explanation (L11-L13). However, due to the lack of financial institution outlets in rural areas, financial services are limited, which hinders the transfer of rural land. We hope that this explanation will further help readers understand the situation. All the modifications are marked as yellow in the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 5: line 13: "digital financial inclusion" needs to be clarified since central to the discussion.

Response 5: Agree. Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have provided a more detailed explanation in the introduction section (L71-L76) and would like to point out here that digital inclusive finance is the deep integration of internet technology and financial services (L13-L15). his ensures the article's logical clarity while avoiding the issue of an overly lengthy introduction section. All the modifications are marked as yellow in the revised manuscript.

 

 

Comments 6: line 14: how does "digital financial inclusion expand non-agricultural entrepreneurship?".

Response 6: Agree. Thank you for raising this question. We have provided an appropriate explanation here (L18-L20). Digital financial inclusion expands non-agricultural entrepreneurship by easing credit constraints and reducing reliance on land livelihoods. A more in-depth analysis is presented in Hypothesis 2 in Section 4 of the article. All the modifications are marked as yellow in the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 7: line 20: "empower smallholders" to do what? Need to state here.

Response 7: Agree. Thank you for your suggestion. We have further explained the meaning of this statement here (L24-L27). This study reveals how DFI affects land transfer behavior, providing a basis for the government to formulate policies that combine the two, ultimately enhancing the production capacity, operational efficiency, and market competitiveness of smallholder farmers. All the modifications are marked as yellow in the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 8: line 22-23: "inclusive development?" What does this term mean? Need to explain for nonspecialist reader.

Response 8: Agree. Thank you for your valuable feedback. There was an issue with the lack of clarity in the definition of the technical term used here, so we have revised the term to “digital financial inclusion (L29).” We have provided a more detailed explanation in the introduction section (L71-L76) and would like to point out here that digital inclusive finance is the deep integration of internet technology and financial services (L13-L15). This ensures the article's logical clarity while avoiding the issue of an overly lengthy introduction section. All the modifications are marked as yellow in the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 9: line 28: good first sentence.

Response 9: Agree. Thank you for your affirmation.

 

Comments 10: line 36-37: must provide source here remove "error" notice.

Response 10: Agree. Thank you very much for your comments on the details of the references in the manuscript. We have thoroughly checked all the citations and references to prevent any situation where references were not found. All the modifications are marked as yellow in the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 11: lines 38-39: how does rural land transfer "free up labor?" Do you mean farmers selling farm and entering. labor market doing non-farm labor? Should indicate here.

Response 11: Agree. Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have conducted a supplementary analysis of this issue(L46-L49). More importantly, once farmers transfer their land management rights, they no longer need to cultivate their own small plots of land, thereby freeing themselves from agricultural production and gaining the time and energy to engage in local non-agricultural work or seek employment elsewhere. All the modifications are marked as yellow in the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 12: lines 41-42: "appropriately scaled farming operations?" Do you mean LARGER farms to overcome problems with China's tiny farms? Need to state and discuss.

Response 12: Agree. Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have conducted a supplementary analysis of this issue(L53-L57). Consequently, by regulating and guiding the transfer of rural land use rights, scattered small plots of land can be consolidated and entrusted to more capable entities for management, thereby achieving a more reasonable and efficient farm scale. This has become the core approach to unlocking agricultural potential and optimizing resource allocation. We hope this will make it easier for readers to read and understand. All the modifications are marked as yellow in the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 13: lines 44-45: "rural land transfer . . . enhances agricultural efficiency and meeting the demands of modernization." Big claims here that require supporting evidence to be rationally persuasive.

Response 13: Agree. Thank you for your valuable comments. We have supplemented this issue (L57-L61) and cited relevant literature to support our argument. Global experience shows that the consolidation of scattered plots of land through rural land transfers has generally promoted the scale and technological application of agricultural production, significantly improved resource utilization efficiency and output levels, and effectively supported the development of agricultural modernization. All the modifications are marked as yellow in the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 14: line 50: end of paragraph. Much borrowed facts and ideas in this paragraph that are cited to their source. Therefore, a source citation needed here for these borrowed ideas and facts.

Response 14: Agree. Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have cited the sources for the facts and opinions in this paragraph (L61-L67, L1180-1184):

Zhou X . International Perspectives on Land Transfer: A Comparative Analysis of Land Transfer Models and Their Applicability and Effectiveness in Developing and Transitional Economies[J]. Journal of Applied Economics and Policy Studies,2025,16(1):59-63.DOI:10.54254/2977-5701/2025.20747

Wang S ,Yang Y ,Luo M . Research on the Effectiveness of China's Rural Land Ownership Policy[J].Journal of Economics and Public Finance,2024,10(4).DOI:10.22158/JEPF.V10N4P184.

All the modifications are marked as yellow in the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 15: line 67: "sophisticated digital tools enable farm consolidation." Need examples of such tools here.

Response 15: Agree. Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have already made the necessary revisions to the article(L89-96). Developed countries, leveraging mature digital infrastructure and robust agricultural financial systems, can effectively provide technological and financial support for the scaling of farm operations. Taking the United States as an example, digital tools such as agricultural insurance work together to address challenges like diseconomies of scale and risk concentration that inevitably arise after farm consolidation. This powerfully propels the scaling process of agricultural operations post-consolidation. This additional detail helps to understand the role of digital tools and further improves the argumentation of the article. All the modifications are marked as yellow in the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 16: lines 64-65: "DFI platforms help bridge the urban-rural information gap." How? How will DFI inform rural resident farm owners who will likely be computer illiterate? Need to explain this claim and defend it with supporting evidence to make it rationally persuasive.

Response 16: Agree. Thank you for your insightful feedback. We have explicitly addressed the concern regarding "disparities in digital literacy" in Section 1 Introduction, Paragraph 2, where we explain how Digital Financial Inclusion (DFI) systematically mitigates this barrier (L82-88). All the modifications are marked as yellow in the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 17: line 82: DFI promotes non-agricultural entrepreneurship? How? Should discuss how rural farmer's employability will be enhanced by DFI. Will it overcome little education? How?.

Response 17: Agree. Thank you very much for your questions regarding the non-agricultural entrepreneurship mechanism discussed in the article. In Section 4. Hypotheses Development of the manuscript (L601-628), we provide a detailed discussion on how digital inclusive finance influences non-agricultural entrepreneurship and, in turn, impacts rural land transfers. On one hand, DFI can alleviate credit constraints, helping farmers overcome the initial capital barriers to entrepreneurship. On the other hand, the development of mobile terminals can break down information barriers, enhancing farmers' business acumen and their ability to identify entrepreneurial opportunities, thereby encouraging them to proactively seize market opportunities and ultimately stimulate non-agricultural employment. All the modifications are marked as yellow in the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 18: line 90: reference is made to "heterogeneity of these effects." Some examples of the alleged effects needed here to be clearer and more rationally useful.

Response 18: Agree. Thank you very much for your suggestion. There is indeed a lack of clarity in the wording of this section of the manuscript, and we have made additions (L116-119). The impact referred to here refers to the core research content of this article, namely the impact of digital inclusive finance on rural land transfers. All the modifications are marked as yellow in the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 19: line 98: DFI will "promote more orderly rural land transfers." How? should discuss here to be rationally useful.

Response 19: Agree. Thank you very much for your suggestions on the details of the article. This section mainly explains the innovative points of the article and introduces its research content. We have revised this paragraph and provided a detailed description of the article's innovation and contributions (L120-151). All the modifications are marked as yellow in the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 20: line 108: discusses section three that defines core concepts like DFI: should be moved into Introduction so that the reader knows what you mean by these key concepts from the beginning of the paper and not wait until section three.

Response 20: Agree. Thank you for your helpful suggestions. We sincerely appreciate your valuable suggestion regarding the placement of definitions for rural land transfer and digital financial inclusion (DFI). In direct response to your feedback, we have now incorporated concise conceptual definitions of both core constructs within the Introduction to enhance accessibility for non-specialist readers and strengthen the narrative coherence of the opening section(L38-L41;L71-L76). To maintain the logical flow of the Introduction as a focused research roadmap while preserving necessary methodological depth, extended conceptual analyses—including operational dimensions, institutional contexts, and historical evolution—remain in Section 3. This dual-level approach strategically balances clarity for general audiences with rigorous technical grounding for domain experts, thereby optimizing structural integrity without compromising analytical thoroughness. We believe this revision successfully addresses your core concern while safeguarding the paper’s scholarly rigor for interdisciplinary readers. All the modifications are marked as yellow in the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 21: line 125: footnote #14 is missing since the notes proceed from #13 to #15. Check for missing note and make sure all the succeeding notes are not incorrect.

Response 21: Agree. Thank you very much for your comments on the details of the references in the article. We have revised this issue (L174-L186) and thoroughly checked all citations and references to avoid any missing references. All the modifications are marked as yellow in the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 22: lines 127-128: "micro-foundation . . . influences macroeconomic performance." How? need to discuss to be rationally useful and clear beyond mere source citation.

Response 22: Agree. Thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have provided a more detailed explanation in this section (L178-L186). From a corporate perspective, the alleviation of financing constraints lies at the core intersection between finance and the macroeconomy: it serves as the critical transmission hub enabling the realization of the financial accelerator effect, amplifying the impact of shocks on the macroeconomy; simultaneously, it constitutes the fundamental micro foundation upon which the development of the financial system relies to enhance macroeconomic performance, as the optimization of financial functions ultimately depends on improving the corporate financing environment and fostering effective investment. All the modifications are marked as yellow in the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 23: line 136: What is entrepreneurship in rural farming in China? Never explained yet referred to throughout.

Response 23: Agree. Thank you for your helpful suggestions. The term “entrepreneurship” mentioned in the article basically refers to farmers engaging in non-agricultural entrepreneurship. Non-Agricultural Entrepreneurship (L749-L754) is defined as the creation, operation, and expansion of economic enterprises outside the agricultural sector, particularly in rural areas. It encompasses innovative and risk-bearing activities that leverage local resources (e.g., water, woodlands, skilled labor, and infrastructure) to engage in manufacturing, services, trade, tourism, and agro-processing. All the modifications are marked as yellow in the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 24: lines 139-143: this paragraph has several claims about DFI, for example, promoting consumption, improving inter-temporal resource allocation, reduces psychological cost of transactions, and enhances household consumption elasticity, etc. without any explanations, examples, or supporting evidence. Such essays need to do more than merely make claims, but must explain and defend them to be rationally persuasive.

Response 24: Agree. Thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have provided detailed explanations for the three arguments in this section (L197-208). This further enhances the logic and persuasiveness of the article's arguments, making them easier for reviewers and readers to understand. All the modifications are marked as yellow in the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 25: lines 158-169: once again, several claims are made in this paragraph about what DFI can do, like "exhibit more efficient operational mechanisms," etc. which clarifying explanation and examples and supporting evidence to be rationally persuasive.

Response 25: Agree. Thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have provided a more detailed explanation in the article (L223-230) to ensure the logical flow of the article and to facilitate reader comprehension. All the modifications are marked as yellow in the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 26: line 173: mentions a potential undermining of the thesis: "disparities in digital literacy." How will this barrier to the authors' argument be overcome with DFI? Need to discuss.

Response 26: Agree. Thank you for raising this critical point. We have addressed the concern regarding digital literacy disparities in the final paragraph of Section 2.1 Effect of Digital Financial Inclusion on Rural Development (L245-246). All the modifications are marked as yellow in the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 27: lines 175-178: borrowed ideas and alleged facts here need a source citation.

Response 27: Agree. Thank you for your helpful suggestions. We have added source citations to all borrowed ideas and factual claims in the revised paragraph of section 2.2 Factors Influencing Rural Land Transfer (L249-253). All the modifications are marked as yellow in the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 28: line 219: "rural financial repression" needs to be clarified and explained and defended to be rationally useful.

Response 28: Agree. Thank you for your helpful suggestions. We have revised the manuscript to clarify and defend the concept of "rural financial repression" as follows: “a systemic condition in developing economies where government policies (e.g., interest rate controls, directed credit programs, and underdeveloped rural banking infrastructure) artificially suppress market-driven financial allocation, thereby perpetuating credit scar-city for agricultural producers and smallholders” [25,38] (L324-327). All the modifications are marked as yellow in the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 29: line 228: need new paragraph before the word: "First."

Response 29: Agree. Thank you for your helpful suggestions. We have added a new paragraph immediately before "First" (L337) to enhance the structural clarity of the argument. All the modifications are marked as yellow in the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 30: section 3.1.1 "clarification of central concept for essay DFI should occur earlier in the discussion; in the Introduction section.

Response 30: Agree. Thank you for your helpful suggestions. We have revised the manuscript to introduce the definition of Digital Financial Inclusion (DFI) earlier in the Introduction section (L71-76) to establish foundational clarity. To maintain the logical flow of the Introduction as a focused research roadmap while preserving necessary methodological depth, extended conceptual analyses—including operational dimensions, institutional contexts, and historical evolution—remain in Section 3. This dual-level approach strategically balances clarity for general audiences with rigorous technical grounding for domain experts, thereby optimizing structural integrity without compromising analytical thoroughness. We believe this revision successfully addresses your core concern while safeguarding the paper’s scholarly rigor for interdisciplinary readers. All the modifications are marked as yellow in the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 31: lines 255-259: definition of key concept of DFI should occur earlier in the discussion and the source for these borrowed ideas provided.

Response 31: Agree. Thank you for your helpful suggestions. We have revised the manuscript to introduce the definition of Digital Financial Inclusion (DFI) earlier in the Introduction section (L63-68 ) to establish foundational clarity. This section provides a comprehensive discussion of the detailed definition of Digital Financial Inclusion (DFI), explicitly referencing the definition outlined in the G20 High-Level Principles for Digital Financial Inclusion (L365). All the modifications are marked as yellow in the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 32: line 260: new paragraph needed before the words: "This paradigm.".

Response 32: Agree. Thank you for your helpful suggestions. We have revised the manuscript by inserting a new paragraph immediately before "This paradigm" (L371) to strengthen the conceptual transition. All the modifications are marked as yellow in the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 33: lines 274-283: history of DFI in China is good provide and the source is provided at the end of the paragraph. Good work here.

Response 33: Agree. Thank you for your positive feedback.

 

Comments 34: lines287-305: two paragraphs on phases 2 and 3 of DFI history in China require source citations for the borrowed ideas and facts. Be more careful about the need for all borrowed ideas and facts properly being cited to their sources.

Response 34: Agree. Thank you for your helpful suggestions. We have thoroughly reviewed the paragraphs on Phases II and III of China’s DFI history and ensured all borrowed ideas and factual claims are properly cited (L402, L417, L1236-1237, L1293-1294). The discussion now explicitly references two key studies: (1) Su T, Tao Y, Wang J. FinTech adoption and the clustered development of rural e-commerce: Evidence from Taobao Vil-lage[J]. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 2024, 85: 102315. DOI: 10.1016/j.pacfin.2024.102315; (2) Yan Z, Xiao J J, Sun Q. Moving up toward sustainable development: Digital finance and income mobility[J]. Sustainable Development, 2024, 32(5): 5742-5763. DOI: 10.1002/sd.2996. All the modifications are marked as yellow in the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 35: Figure 1: good visual presentation of data.

Response 35: Agree. Thank you for your positive feedback on the visual presentation of our data.

 

Comments 36: line 323: for some people geographical locations are capitalized, such as "Western" and "Northeastern" regions. Keep in mind throughout paper and journal practice.

Response 36: Agree. Thank you for your careful review. We have conducted a thorough revision of the entire manuscript to ensure consistency in the formatting of geographical terms. All references to regions such as "western" and "northeastern" now follow lowercase conventions throughout the paper (L981), aligning with standard journal practices. This adjustment has been applied uniformly to maintain academic rigor and formatting coherence. All the modifications are marked as yellow in the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 37: end of paragraph on p. 8: no mention is made of the recent property value downturn in China making real estate values lower and contributing to slowing economic growth. Since this is a history of rural economy, such an important development would seem to be worthy of mention and discussion.

Response 37: Agree. Thank you for your helpful suggestions. We have addressed this important development in the third paragraph of Section 3.1.3 Current Situation of Digital Financial Inclusion. The added discussion highlights how the recent downturn in China’s property values and its contribution to slowing economic growth may impact rural economies and DFI (L452-460). All the modifications are marked as yellow in the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 38: section 3.2.1: should define RLT, rural land transfer, earlier in the discussion; I think in the Introduction section.

Response 38: Agree. Thank you for your helpful suggestions. We have now explicitly defined Rural Land Transfer (RLT) in Section 1 (Introduction) to ensure conceptual clarity from the outset (L38-L41). To maintain the logical flow of the Introduction as a focused research roadmap while preserving necessary methodological depth, extended conceptual analyses—including operational dimensions, institutional contexts, and historical evolution—remain in Section 3. This dual-level approach strategically balances clarity for general audiences with rigorous technical grounding for domain experts, thereby optimizing structural integrity without compromising analytical thoroughness. We believe this revision successfully addresses your core concern while safeguarding the paper’s scholarly rigor for interdisciplinary readers. All the modifications are marked as yellow in the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 39: line 379: subsection heading: "Phase I:" should be moved to the next page to be spatially coherent with the text for this section.

Response 39: Agree. Thank you for your helpful suggestions. We have adjusted the placement of the subsection heading "Phase I" to ensure spatial coherence with its corresponding text (L381). All the modifications are marked as yellow in the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 40: line 380: "China's planned economy era" does not have the years involved. Are you thinking of 1949-1976 under Mao? Should indicate years of this phase.

Response 40: Agree. Thank you for your helpful suggestions. We have indeed specified the timeline of China’s planned economy era (1953–1992) in Section 3.2.2 Historical Progression of Rural Land Transfer (L499), with explicit references to: (1)1953: The formal launch of the planned economy via the First Five-Year Plan, marking the institutionalization of state-directed resource allocation. (2)1992: The official conclusion of the planned economy era, as China adopted a socialist market economy model at the 14th National Congress of the Communist Party of China. You are correct to note that the planned economy era in China overlaps with but is not entirely synonymous with the Mao Zedong era (1949–1976). We appreciate your attention to detail in strengthening the manuscript’s chronological clarity. All the modifications are marked as yellow in the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 41: Three paragraphs referring to three phases of rural land transfer all are missing source citations for the borrowed ideas and facts. Need here to make the claims rationally useful.

Response 41: Agree. Thank you for your helpful suggestions. We have comprehensively cited the three key sources supporting the historical analysis of rural land transfer (RLT) phases (L505, L509, L520, L533, L1295-1300):    Lin J. Rural reforms and agricultural growth in China[J]. The American Economic Review,1992,82(1): 34-51. DOI: 10.1257/aer.82.1.34. Zhou Y, Li X, Liu Y. Rural land system reforms in China: History, issues, and challenges[J]. Land Use Policy, 2020,99:104846. DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104846. Deininer Kl, Xia F, Talip K, et al. Investment impacts of gendered land rights in customary tenure systems: Substantive and methodological insights from Malawi[J]. World Development, 2021, 147: 105654. DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105654.

All borrowed ideas and facts are now rigorously cited with these authoritative sources, enhancing the manuscript’s academic integrity. We appreciate your guidance in strengthening the evidence base. All the modifications are marked as yellow in the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 42: whole section of current status of RLT is lacking any source citations. This detracts from the value of the research reported here. Be more careful about providing source citations for borrowed ideas and data.

Response 42: Agree. Thank you for your helpful suggestions. Thank you for your critical feedback regarding source citations in the 3.2.3 Current Status of Rural Land Transfer section. We have now explicitly cited the data source in the revised manuscript (L537-541, L550, L561). All empirical data presented in this section are derived from the China's Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (MARA) official statistics. The analytical conclusions are based on rigorous descriptive statistical analysis of these datasets. We appreciate your attention to citation accuracy, which has strengthened the manuscript's empirical foundation. All the modifications are marked as yellow in the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 43: line 483: DFI is claimed to enhance financial literacy: how? not clear.

Response 43: Agree. Thank you for your helpful suggestions. We have now provided a comprehensive explanation under Hypothesis 1 detailing how Digital Financial Inclusion enhances financial literacy (L608-618). DFI is claimed to enhance financial literacy through its integration of accessible educational tools, real-time information dissemination, and behavioral reinforcement mechanisms. Digital platforms embed interactive resources like budgeting apps and investment simulators, enabling self-paced learning of financial concepts such as compound interest. Simultaneously, DFI reduces information asymmetry by delivering instant market up-dates and product comparisons, fostering informed decision-making aligned with behavioral economics principles. Additionally, features like transaction tracking, automated savings goals, and repayment reminders cultivate financially responsible habits, with empirical evidence linking frequent DFI engagement to improved credit management. By transforming passive knowledge into active skills, DFI bridges theoretical literacy and practical application. All the modifications are marked as yellow in the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 44: paragraphs following Hypothesis 2, pp. 12-13: lack any source citations.

Response 44: Agree. Thank you for bringing this oversight to our attention. We have now incorporated relevant source citations in the paragraphs following Hypothesis 2 (L631-639, L651-655) to strengthen theoretical grounding. All the modifications are marked as yellow in the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 45: lines 580 - 618: good to provide definitions of key concepts within theoretical framework.

Response 45: Agree. Thank you for your insightful suggestion regarding conceptual clarification within our theoretical framework. In response, we have systematically defined and operationalized all core variables in Section 5.2 Empirical Model to ensure methodological alignment between theoretical constructs and empirical measurement. Specifically, Rural Land Transfer (L719-723) is conceptualized as the process where farm households retain ownership and contractual rights to their contracted cultivated land, yet transfer management rights to new-type agricultural operation entities through market-oriented contractual arrangements. This phenomenon is primarily measured by whether micro-level farm households have participated in land transfer activities.; Digital Financial Inclusion (L592-598) is quantified using the Peking University DFI Index, incorporating sub-dimensions of coverage breadth, usage depth, and digitalization level; Non-Agricultural Entrepreneurship (L731-738) is defined as the creation, operation, and expansion of economic enterprises outside the agricultural sector, particularly in rural areas. It encompasses innovative and risk-bearing activities that leverage local resources (e.g., water, woodlands, skilled labor, and infrastructure) to engage in manufacturing, services, trade, tourism, and agro-processing; and Commercial Insurance (L749-753) is characterized as risk management products offered by private-sector insurance companies, distinct from government-mandated social insurance programs. It operates on a voluntary basis where policyholders pay premiums in exchange for financial compensation against specified risks. All the modifications are marked as yellow in the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 46: line 644: move Table 1 to next page so the whole table is one page and more coherent spatially.

Response 46: Agree. Thank you for your formatting refinement suggestion. We have relocated Table 1 to the subsequent page to ensure the entire table occupies a single page and maintains spatial coherence with adjacent content. (L804). All the modifications are marked as yellow in the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 47: move Table 2 to next page to be spatially coherent with the rest of the Table.

Response 47: Agree. Thank you for your helpful suggestions. We have relocated Table 2 to the subsequent page to maintain spatial coherence with the rest of the Table in the manuscript (L836). All the modifications are marked as yellow in the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 48: move Table 5 title to next page to be together with the data for the Table.

Response 48: Agree. Thank you for your helpful suggestions. We have revised the placement of Table 5 to ensure its title and data appear on the same page（L917）. All the modifications are marked as yellow in the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 49: line 777: "non-agricultural ventures" are mentioned throughout the paper without providing examples. Should provide earlier.

Response 49: Agree. Thank you for your insightful comment regarding the ambiguity of "non-agricultural ventures." We sincerely apologize for the confusion caused by this terminology. As clarified in Section 5.2 Empirical Model, "non-agricultural entrepreneurship" refers to the creation, operation, and expansion of economic enterprises outside the agricultural sector, particularly in rural areas. It encompasses innovative and risk-bearing activities that leverage local resources (e.g., water, woodlands, skilled labor, and infrastructure) to engage in manufacturing, services, trade, tourism, and agro-processing (L749-753). To enhance conceptual precision, we have systematically replaced all instances of "non-agricultural ventures" with "non-agricultural entrepreneurship" throughout the manuscript (L942, L993). This revision not only resolves terminological ambiguity but also aligns with the World Bank's operational definition of rural non-farm enterprises (World Bank, 2023). We appreciate your guidance in strengthening theoretical clarity. All the modifications are marked as yellow in the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 50: lines 862-864: should attempt to theorize an explanation for the alleged phenomena about DFI and different income groups.

Response 50: Agree. Thank you for your helpful suggestions. As the reviewer said, the alleged phenomena about DFI and different income groups should be explained. Therefore, we have theoretically elucidated this phenomenon in the last paragraph of Section 10.1 Conclusions (L1080-1095). All the modifications are marked as yellow in the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 51: line 870: "market players?" farmers.

Response 51: Agree. Thank you for your helpful suggestions. As the reviewer said, the term "market player" may cause ambiguity and lack clarity. Therefore, we have revised the sentence to: "Local governments can foster tripartite collaboration among government bodies, financial institutions, and farmers. (L1100, L1101)" All the modifications are marked as yellow in the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 52: This is a good essay and research that would be enhanced greatly with further explanations of several points made and sources provided for all borrowed facts and data. Also, keep tables coherent on each page and move definitions to earlier in the discussion. When these corrections are made, I think the essay is worthy of publication.

Response 52: Agree. Thank you for valuable comments, which have helped us further improve the quality of our study! We learned a lot! We have adequately addressed several key points with expanded explanations, provided sources for all cited facts/data, maintained coherent tables across each page, and relocated crucial definitions to the Introduction section. Thanks again!

Special thanks to you for your valuable comments and suggestions, which have helped us further improve the quality of our study! We learned a lot! Thanks again!

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript has met the standards for publication.