Emerging Markets’ Carbon Pricing Development: A Comparative Analysis of China and South Korea’s Experience
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this study World-3441284, authors provided deep insights and practical frameworks for the development of carbon pricing mechanisms in emerging markets by comparing the carbon pricing policies of China and South Korea. Moreover, taking Malaysia as a case study further enhanced the relevance and practicality of their study. After reviewing this paper, I have the following comments for authors.
(1) The overall structure of this study was reasonable and logical, yet introduction to the paper’s structure can be organized in a separated paragraph at the end of Section 1 Introduction.
(2) Since there are so many abbreviations in this paper such as ETS, PPP, ESG and so on. Some of them even appear more than once, thus a Nomenclature table is suggested.
(3) Although this study selected China and South Korea, two representative emerging market countries, their experiences may not fully cover the special challenges and problems faced by other emerging economies in carbon pricing.
(4) The authors’ use of abbreviations was not standardized in this study. In other words: (i) although the full name together with its abbreviation has already previously mentioned, they are repeated in the subsequent text. For example, ETS in line 38 and line 276. (ii) ETS refers to Emissions Trading Systems in line 38, yet it also refers to Emissions Trading Scheme in line 574. Which one is correct?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1, thank you very much for your constructive comments, they are well acknowledged. Please find the response and amendments to your specific comments in the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have carefully reviewed this interesting manuscript; my comments and suggestions are listed below.
Comments and Suggestions
While the analysis is comprehensive, it can be extended using different aspects. For example, production-based emission and consumption-based emission.
Similarly, the comparative advantage of industries and/or countries in producing goods and services where they have a comparative advantage or disadvantage.
The authors can offer some more empirics to support the analysis (if possible). While qualitative analyses are important, they are sometimes blind without empirics.
Once my comments are addressed, the manuscript can be accepted for publication.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageAverage.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2, thank you very much for your constructive comments, they are well acknowledged. Please find the response and amendments to your specific comments in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsWell-written qualitative article - plenty attention to detail.
Relevant, good comparison of China with South Korea.
For three minor comments, see attached.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3, thank you very much for your constructive comments, they are well acknowledged. Please find the response and amendments to your specific comments in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper presents a comparative analysis of carbon pricing mechanisms in China and South Korea, with Malaysia as a case study, utilizing the FASTER principles framework. The topic is highly relevant given the increasing importance of carbon pricing in emerging markets. The methodology, which integrates qualitative doctrinal research and comparative policy analysis, is sound. However, the manuscript could benefit from clearer articulation of its key contributions, stronger methodological justification, and a more critical engagement with the literature.
- The abstract is informative but lacks clarity regarding the specific findings and policy recommendations. Consider explicitly stating key takeaways from the comparative analysis.
- The introduction provides a good overview of carbon pricing in different markets but needs a clearer research gap. The authors should clarify:
- Why is a comparative study of China and South Korea particularly relevant?
- What unique insights does this study provide beyond existing research?
- How does Malaysia’s experience contribute to the broader discussion?.
- How does the FASTER framework operationalize carbon pricing effectiveness? More details on its application would be beneficial.
- The comparative analysis of China and South Korea should be more critically framed to highlight the key differences and their implications for other emerging markets.
For instance, what lessons can be drawn from South Korea’s stricter regulatory approach versus China’s more flexible system?
- The discussion section does not sufficiently connect findings to broader policy implications. The authors should clearly state:
- What specific challenges Malaysia (and similar emerging markets) might face in adopting an ETS or carbon tax?
- How can policymakers balance economic competitiveness and carbon pricing effectiveness?
- The policy recommendations should be more actionable. While the proposed structured implementation framework is valuable, concrete steps for governments, industries, and investors would make it more useful.
- Some sections contain long, complex sentences that could be simplified for readability.
- The authors provided sufficient literature review. However, to provide broader perspectives, recent studies could be incorporated. You may consider the following and others on Scopus database: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139504 and https://doi.org/10.2118/218948-MS.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Some sections contain long, complex sentences that could be simplified for readability.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 4, thank you very much for your constructive comments, they are well acknowledged. Please find the response and amendments to your specific comments in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe abstract needs to be finalized. Authors should describe the goal more clearly and show the results. The abstract also uses different dimensions to estimate emissions in China and South Korea, which makes it difficult for the reader to understand.
Literature review. The article does not provide an analysis of the literature on the topic, and there is no explanation for why the authors believe that their research will contribute to the development of the topic. The research methods are not explained, and it is not clear why the authors have chosen this method and why it is better than other methods.
The goal set by the authors, "to provide insights for developing carbon pricing mechanisms in emerging markets that support climate commitments while maintaining economic competitiveness in the future," has not been fully achieved. There is no evidence of how carbon pricing affects the competitiveness of countries.
While the material is rather interesting, and topic is relevant, the manuscrpt requires significant revision. At present, the article is more descriptive, and the authors' contribution and novelty are not clearly demonstrated.
Individual remarks
(46-47) In order to compare, it is necessary to lead to a single comparable unit, for example, the currency of Malaysia, as it is discussed in the article.
(78) This research examines carbon pricing development in emerging markets... What other markets are we talking about besides Malaysia? It is necessary to proofread the text and remove inconsistencies, such as (490 market infrastructure - 507 - Technical Infrastructure Development, (429) their experiences provide valuable insights for emerging carbon markets, (488) the experiences of China and South Korea provide valuable insights for emerging carbon markets). Unnecessary words should be removed.
There are many basic and well-known arguments in paragraphs 3.1 Philosophical Reasoning and 3.2 Social and Ecological Reasoning.
(511) The authors discuss efficiency at a descriptive level without argumentation.
(555) The conclusion seems to be too hasty. Based on the experiences of China and Korea, it does not necessarily follow that "these lessons suggest that emerging markets should prioritize three key elements in their development approach." The socio-economic situations are different everywhere. Furthermore, the article specifically focuses on Malaysia.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageIt is necessary to proofread the text and remove inconsistencies. The text is readble.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 5, thank you very much for your constructive comments, they are well acknowledged. Please find the response and amendments to your specific comments in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
