Increase in Industrial Sulfur Dioxide Pollution Fee and Polluting Firms’ Green Total Factor Productivity: Evidence from China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript focuses on the relationship between the increase of industrial Sulfur Dioxide pollution fees and polluting firms’ green total factor productivity-evidence (GTFP) in China. It analyses the firm-level panel data in the annual survey of industrial firms (ASIF) and environmental survey and reports (ESR) from 2005 to 2013 to investigate the impact of the increase of the emission fee of sulfur dioxide. This paper applies the generalized difference-in-difference model to the firm-level production and pollution data. It reveals this policy significantly increased polluting firms’ GTFP in pilot provinces. The positive impact is mainly caused by polluting firms in eastern pilot provinces and foreign polluting firms. The mechanism analysis shows that polluting firms in eastern pilot provinces significantly enhanced their innovation in green technology and their export, and they increased the installation of pollution-reducing facilities per unit of output value.
The results provide rich policy implications on pollution control. It offers insightful policy implications for environmental protection and sustainable development, especially in developing countries
In summary, the research demonstrated that the increase of industrial Sulfur Dioxide pollution fee significantly increases polluting firms’ GTFP in pilot provinces.
Overall, the article is well organized and its content is good. However, some issues still need improvement:
1） The language should also be improved, and there are many typos of grammar problems.
2） The format of table is confusing. The same table should be placed on the same page.
3） Legend format is not standard. In some parts, the author mentioned figure use figure No. but others are Figure No. which format is inconsistent.
4） The number of references is less, and the reference is old.
Since methods and results look appropriate and have important scientific significance, I believe the manuscript has good perspectives. So far, the authors should make minor revisions before re-submission.
Minor editing of English language is required.
Author Response
1） The language should also be improved, and there are many typos of grammar problems.
We have revised the writing and corrected typos and grammar mistakes.
2) The format of table is confusing. The same table should be placed on the same page.
Except for table 4 which is too long and table 7 (which ,if we adjust, would make table 10 appear on two pages), we have corrected other formatting issues.
3) Legend format is not standard. In some parts, the author mentioned figure use figure No. but others are Figure No. which format is inconsistent.
We have corrected this issue.
4） The number of references is less, and the reference is old.
We have added several newly published papers that are related to our research in the reference.
Reviewer 2 Report
The bibliographic study is complete, based on articles from China (over 75%). All these articles deal with the collection of pollutant discharge charges.
It would have been interesting if there was a comparison with other countries.
The case study is carried out on companies that carry out production.
The authors specify that the data are for a period of 8 years, divided into 2 sets. It is specified in one phrase "... the annual survey of key firms 95 of industrial pollution sources, including the amount of pollutant emissions ", respectively they represent 85%. What are the values ​​of the 2 data sets? I suggest a table with company ID, year, polluting factor values.
The authors use the regression model that can be found in the other articles listed in the bibliography.
From a statistical point of view, the analysis is well done. I would suggest an ANOVA analysis that results in F-values ​​and P-values.
Conclusions are too general, may be developed - Somehow I blame politics And, GTFP increased for the polluting companies in the pilot provinces in the east, and the non-eastern ones were not affected.
Author Response
1) It would have been interesting if there was a comparison with other countries.
We add papers studying the effect of emission fees in other countries, including OECD countries, Japan, Mexico and BRICS countries.
2)What are the values of the 2 data sets? I suggest a table with company ID, year, polluting factor values.
We add detailed description of these two data sets in section 2.1. A new table (table 1) containing available firm-level information in the ESR data set is also added.
3）From a statistical point of view, the analysis is well done. I would suggest an ANOVA analysis that results in F-values and P-values.
We add a new table (table 3) which presents results of the ANOVA analysis.
Reviewer 3 Report
The article discusses the important issues showing how an environmental policy implemented by the central government of China can affect polluting firms. The research is conducted at the level of companies and not at the provincial level, which should be emphasized. China is accused of generating the largest amount of pollution into the environment and undertaking research showing the scale of the phenomenon and the actions taken by the Chinese government in this area deserve appreciation.
The authors sufficiently described and justified the choice of the topic of the article. The article is written carefully in terms of linguistics, graphics and content. I have no objections to the choice of research methodology and its description. Statistical analyses have been carried out correctly and their presentation is clear and understandable.
I only have a few remarks about the list of literature that the authors used when writing the article, i.e. the authors did not reach for the most current publications on the analyzed issues. In addition, the list of literature is rather modest and should be expanded.
Author Response
I only have a few remarks about the list of literature that the authors used when writing the article, i.e. the authors did not reach for the most current publications on the analyzed issues. In addition, the list of literature is rather modest and should be expanded.
We removed some old publications and add 15 new ones, most which were published within the last 5 years. The number of papers we cite increase from 26 to 33 in the revision.
Reviewer 4 Report
This manuscript studies the firm-level panel data in annual survey of industrial firms of China and environmental survey and reports in the range of 2005-2013 to assess the influence of the increase of the emission fee of sulfur dioxide in China. The subject seems to be interesting and presenting suitable findings. However, its introduction needs to be restructured. Some revisions are required before the final decision.
1. Please provide the affiliations of the authors and contact email of the corresponding author.
2. The introduction needs to be rearranged. The structure is not desirable. First, it needs an introductory section to introduce the subject with scientific knowledge. Second, a comprehensive literature survey should be done. One of the distinguishing features of academic writing is that it is informed by what is already known, what work has been done before, and/or what ideas and models have already been developed. As well as being systematic, the review should be evaluative and critical of the studies or ideas which are relevant to the current work. The Introduction does not have suitable literature survey. Third, the novelties and the contributions of the study should be presented in the last paragraph of the Introduction. It is not clear what are the novelties of the study. These questions should be clearly answered in this paragraph: What are the main questions addressed by the research? Does it address a specific gap in the field and what is this gap? What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?
3. It is not desirable to present the findings of the study in the Introduction, lines 42-61.
4. Please avoid using structures like “we combine...”, “we have...”, “we apply...”, “we use...”, and etc. Please check this issue throughout the manuscript and resolve it.
5. Please provide a supporting reference for Equation (1).
6. Please introduce all of the parameters in Equation (1).
7. There are too many footnotes in the manuscript. If they are not necessary, please remove them. If they are, please present them in the main text.
Author Response
1.Please provide the affiliations of the authors and contact email of the corresponding author.
We listed this information under the title so when we initially submitted. It is possible that the double-blinded review process shielded this information.
2.The introduction needs to be rearranged.
The new introduction is written following your suggestions in rearranging and rewriting the introduction. Only new contents are highlighted , but other parts in the introduction have also been reorganized.
In particular, the subject with scientific knowledge is first introduced, followed by new references and a review about what have been done by the extant literature in the first three paragraphs. The fourth paragraph does a critical review and points out the gap in previous studies. The fifth paragraph lays out the research background and main research questions of this paper. The sixth paragraph introduced the methodology and the research plan. The seventh paragraph presents the novelty and contribution of this paper.
3.It is not desirable to present the findings of the study in the Introduction, lines 42-61.
No finding is presented in the new introduction.
4.Please avoid using structures like “we combine...”, “we have...”, “we apply...”, “we use...”, and etc. Please check this issue throughout the manuscript and resolve it.
All such sentences have been rewritten.
5.Please provide a supporting reference for Equation (1).
It is a popular method for studying natural and quasi-natural policy experiment. A classic reference has been added.
6.Please introduce all of the parameters in Equation (1).
They have been fixed.
7.There are too many footnotes in the manuscript. If they are not necessary, please remove them. If they are, please present them in the main text.
Some footnotes have been deleted and some have been removed to the main content. Necessary footnotes have been left.
