The Impact of Normalised Cross-Strait Relations on Regional Economics—An Empirical Study of Jiangsu Province

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review the article "The Impact of Normalised Cross-Strait Relations on Regional Economics." The article attempts to investigate the economic impact of improved Cross-Strait relations in 2008 on the Jiangsu province of China. Using synthetic control and difference-in-differences methods, the results show increased economic growth and per capita GDP in Jiangsu following normalized relations. Overall, the manuscript presents an interesting question and the results are robust across several specifications. However, there are concerns about the limited detail on methods and data as well as the lack of discussion on limitations and contributions to literature. See my specific comments below for suggestions to strengthen the background, methods, and interpretation of this work.

Introduction

• The introduction explains the background of cross-strait relations but does not clearly state the research questions or objectives of the current study. These should be explicitly outlined.
• More context is needed on the specific "normalized cross-strait relations" being examined - what changed in 2008 that is being analyzed?
• The introduction mentions "previous research" but does not cite specific studies. Relevant prior literature should be discussed and cited.

Literature Review

• The review summarizes different viewpoints on the relationship between political relations and economic impacts, but does not sufficiently synthesize these perspectives or explain how the current study builds on and extends prior research.
• Several statements mention "more research/studies are needed" without providing citations to back up these claims. The gaps in the literature should be supported.
• The review could be better organized by theme rather than jumping between different findings. Group studies on positive impacts, negative impacts, etc to better highlight the state of this research area. Here are some relevant papers:
  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305741022001357

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.266

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102255

Methods

• More details are needed on the data sources, sample, variables, and measures. How was each variable operationalized and measured?
• The synthetic control method is explained clearly, but more information is needed on the difference-in-differences design - what was the control/treatment group, time periods, regression model, etc.?
• The methods would benefit from a visual model of the study design to better illustrate the treatment, control groups, time periods, and measures.

Results

• In the results, explain what each table/figure shows rather than just presenting them without interpretation. Highlight key findings.
• For the difference-in-differences results, explain the coefficients and statistical significance. Don't just state there was an increase - how much of an increase and is it significant?
• Provide some interpretation of whether results support or contradict expectations based on prior literature.

Discussion

• The discussion focuses on implications but lacks interpretation of the results - what do the findings mean in the context of this research topic?
• Limitations of the study design, data, methodology should be addressed. This is lacking.
• Unclear what "new evidence" this study really provides over prior research. More discussion of contributions to the literature is needed.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks for your comments. The reply to your comments is attached in ths word document. 

Best wishes

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic of the article is relevant. The authors address the question: how does the quality of international relations affect regional economics? At the heart of the empirical study is Jiangsu Province. The results of this study can be applied for the purposes of international economic policy.

In order to improve the article, we recommend enhancing the theoretical review and the quality of literary sources. It is necessary to take into account the research conducted in recent years on this topic. The research of recent years should ideally be considered in Section 2 (Literature Review and Theoretical Frameworks) and the Discussion section.

It is desirable to describe the advantages of the DID method for this study. This will make the article more appealing to the reader.

The phrase “For example, the United States and the Soviet Union kept their economic ties after the Second World War” (p.2 (#85-86)) raises doubts. It would be better to choose a different example.

Minor points: section numbering needs to be corrected: «2. Literature Review and Theoretical Frameworks» (p.2), «2. Data and Methods» (p.6)

The article is of scientific interest.

Overall Recommendation: Accept after minor revision

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

Thanks for your comments. My reply to your comments is attached in the word document here. 

Best wishes

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors have carefully revised the manuscript as per comments in the first round. I have no further comments.