Do Women Benefit from Global Production Networks? Evidence from the Indonesian Footwear Industry

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Here are my comments of the paper, Do Women Benefit from Global Production Networks? Evidence from the Indonesian Footwear Industry submitted to Economies.

1.  The literature review is missing.  The author(s) should delve more into the literature if necessary. 

2. The literature should be written in past tense as the work has already been completed; similarly with the methods and the empirical results of this paper.

3. Line 20 the author(s) need to explain The footwear industry needs more academic attention,

4. Line 35, replace during with between

5. Line 35 and line 36 two sentences start with However.  It seems contradictory.  The author(s) should rewrite the beginning of these sentences. 

6. Lines 55-56, what does this sentence mean?  It is not quite clear what the meaning is.

7. Line 63, consumer price index should be Consumer Price Index. 

8. Explain briefly what is the Slovin formula.  Some readers may not be familiar with the Slovin formula. 

9.  Line 83, And should be and

10. Line 104, tion of vertical specialization used in this research is as follows:  should be rewritten as tion of vertical specialization is

11. Lines 134 and 137 take as follows:

12. Line 153 This research wanted to determine how the vertical specification influences the should be rewritten as This research determined how the vertical specification influences the

13. Lines 155 and 159, the 1 after beta should be a subscript

14. In table 2 that showed the correlations, which of these correlations are statistically significant? 

15. Line 173 should correlation be autocorrelation?

16. Lines 176-177 This can be overcome by adding a strong command to the regression model to correct standard errors (Cameron & Trivedi, 2009).  Not clear what this statement means?  The author(s) would need to rewrite this sentence. 

17. Line 199 tion can be described as follows:  should be rewritten as tion is

18. In figure 2  what is the label for the vertical axes? 

19. Line 256, the author(s) mentioned global crises.  Which one?  The 2008 Financial Crisis?  The Asian Financial crisis?  

20.  In figure 3  what is the label for the vertical axes?  It is also hard to read.  The author(s) should revise this figure 

21. In table 4, this table is incomprehensible.  The author(s) need to revise this table. 

22. Also are the standard errors in table 4 robust? Would need to use robust standard errors because the idiosyncratic errors have heteroscedasticity or autocorrelation or even both these conditions in this panel regression. 

23. Lines 342 and 343 this sentence is not quite clear.  The author(s) need to revise this sentence. 

The author(s) need to provide extensive editing of English language required in this paper. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I've adapted it to your suggestions for improvement. Please advise again if something is not appropriate.

Thank You

Best Regards,

Author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The work has some merit, but my overall impression is poor. I do not understand the theoretical context in which the model is proposed, and this is a major limitation. It seems to me that the author proposes a model per se, without justifying it. In fact, the control variables she/he includes in the model are not variables that "control" the dependent variable, but are justified on the basis of the main independent variable in the model, which is inadequate. And what is worse, after proposing the model there is an attempt to give it a theoretical framework that is not very credible. Additional comments:

 

1. where is "j" in equation (1)? Read the immediately following paragraph.

 2. It is written "The ratio between imported inputs and export output measures vertical specialization. The greater the value of a company's vertical specialization, the greater the company's involvement in the global footwear production network". See equation (1)

3. Immediately after, "The dependent variable is also controlled by..." is written. But justify it by its relation to VS.

4. I believe that some of the conclusions, in line with the above, are not supported by the results (even some that are highlighted in the abstract).

5. I would finish the introduction by explaining what is done in the paper.

6. Section 2 should be Data and Methodology. In fact, the first paragraphs focus on the data.

7. Fixed effect method? Is not what you show in equations (2) and (3)!!!! The intercept is the same for all!!!.

8. To say that a fixed effect model assumes the same slope is not correct, since a heterogeneous panel can be estimated.

9. It is written "The fixed effect method can show how much the characteristics of each company come from other variables that are not included in the estimation model (the omitted variable). This characteristic can be seen from the different intercept levels for each company.". As I say, I do not see it in the equations.

10. The results section is poorly structured. It includes a descriptive part that could go in a previous section. And leave for this section the results of the proposed models.

11. Some statements in the paper are not based on references, and the introduction does not even refer to any of the literature. It is recommended to present the ideas of this paper based on the findings of existing studies and to point out the contribution of this paper based on the literature review. Some effort would be welcome

12. The content of the empirical study is not sufficient and can be further analyzed for heterogeneity, etc.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I've adapted it to your suggestions for improvement. Please advise again if something is not appropriate.

Thank You

Best Regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Here are my comments on the paper for round 2, Do Women Benefit from Global Production Networks? Evidence from the Indonesian Footwear Industry submitted to Economies.

There are no new comments

Just do a quick review before publication

Author Response

GPN has a positive effect on female workers. The more GPN, the greater the ratio of the number of female workers, both production and non-production workers. This can be seen in the results of this study in Table 4.

Reviewer 2 Report

The work has improved ostensibly and eliminated serious errors. It is now much better embedded in the literature, for example. However, there are issues that I believe need to be addressed.

 

1.       In the abstract, for readability reasons, it should be indicated from the beginning that the paper differentiates between production and non-production workers.

2.       Along the same lines, something in this regard should be indicated in the introduction. The authors overlook something that is key to their results

3.       The introduction should end by indicating the structure of the paper and should precisely link the second section with the rest of the article. This is important

4.       “where j is country export destination country k” Please correct it.

5.       I don't like that in equations the same letter denotes different variables/entities. This is something that, I think, should be corrected. I mean, if x denotes y in one equation, it should do so in all; i.e., change the notation to avoid misunderstandings.

6.       Neither figure 1 nor figure 2 are mentioned in the text!

7.       For me the key is Figure 2. In theory it is the summary of the theory that supports the analysis. Honestly, I don't see it. And to me this is key in the paper; it should not only mention Figure 2 but also explain it in great detail. The reliability of your subsequent analysis depends on it!

8.       From the very beginning, I have been annoyed by the use of the proportion of women as an indicator of "fair employment".

9.       I still do not like to see in section 4 an initial analysis that has nothing to do with what was proposed in the previous section.

10.   I prefer not to comment further on methodological issues. The approach could be improved, but the above is more important.

Author Response

REVIEWER 2

Notes from Reviewer 2	Before Revised	After Revised
1. In the abstract, for readability reasons, it should be indicated from the beginning that the paper differentiates between production and non-production workers.	Despite remarkable improvements in key economic and social standards, the Indonesian footwear industry still struggles to ensure decent work, particularly for women workers….	Despite remarkable improvements in key economic and social standards, the Indonesian footwear industry still struggles to ensure decent work, particularly for women workers. In this study, female workers are divided into production and non-production women workers. Production women workers as a proxy for occupational segregation based on sex or called non-skilled workers while non-production women workers as a proxy for women's share of work in managerial and administrative work and skilled workers…. (see lines 5 -9)
2. Along the same lines, something in this regard should be indicated in the introduction. The authors overlook something that is key to their results	The paper aims to close this research gap by examining the consequences female workers deal with within a GPN. It focuses on the links between the country’s engagement with GPNs and the challenges of how to keep it balanced with social up-grading by using the Decent Work (DW) framework (as initially introduced in Bar-rientos et al., 2011; Barrientos, Gereffi & Rossi, 2011; Milberg & Winkler, 2011). More specifically, the authors examine the implication of GPNs engagement on equal op-portunity and treatment in employment (later, the authors will use the terms “equal opportunity and treatment” and “fair employment treatment” interchangeably in this paper). This fair employment treatment indicator used in this article is the seg-regation of occupations by sex and women's share of employment in managerial and administrative work (Anker, 2003).	The paper aims to close this research gap by examining the consequences female workers deal with within a GPN. It focuses on the links between the country’s en-gagement with GPNs and the challenges of how to keep it balanced with social up-grading by using the Decent Work (DW) framework (as initially introduced in Bar-rientos et al., 2011; Barrientos, Gereffi & Rossi, 2011; Milberg & Winkler, 2011). More specifically, the authors examine the implication of GPNs engagement on equal op-portunity and treatment in employment (later, the authors will use the terms “equal opportunity and treatment” and “fair employment treatment” interchangeably in this paper). This fair employment treatment indicator used in this article is the segregation of occupations by sex (Women Production Workers) and women's share of employment in managerial and administrative work (Women Non-Production workers) (Anker, 2003).
3. The introduction should end by indicating the structure of the paper and should precisely link the second section with the rest of the article. This is important		It's been adjusted
4. “where j is country export destination country k” Please correct it.		It has been checked in Reference Yi (2003) and it is in accordance with the reference
5.  I don't like that in equations the same letter denotes different variables/entities. This is something that, I think, should be corrected. I mean, if x denotes y in one equation, it should do so in all; i.e., change the notation to avoid misunderstandings.		It's been adjusted
6. Neither figure 1 nor figure 2 are mentioned in the text!	This article used vertical specialization as a proxy for GPN.     The conceptual framework of this research is shown in the following chart:	This article used vertical specialization as a proxy for GPN which can be seen in Figure 1.   The conceptual framework of this research is shown in The Figure 2.
7. For me the key is Figure 2. In theory it is the summary of the theory that supports the analysis. Honestly, I don't see it. And to me this is key in the paper; it should not only mention Figure 2 but also explain it in great detail. The reliability of your subsequent analysis depends on it!		An explanatory sentence has been added under Figure 2 “In Figure 2, it can be seen that VS as a proxy for GPN and increases in labor and capital which are influenced by wages and mechanization are related to fair employment treatment, namely separation based on gender and skills (managerial and administrative)”
8. From the very beginning, I have been annoyed by the use of the proportion of women as an indicator of "fair employment".		Proportion of women as an indicator of "fair employment" because one form of justice is segregation based on gender. This means that the greater the number of female workers, the fairer it will be.
9. I still do not like to see in section 4 an initial analysis that has nothing to do with what was proposed in the previous section.		The initial analysis is a descriptive statistic of the data used in this study. This is placed in chapter 4 because there is an analysis that can support the next analysis.
10. I prefer not to comment further on methodological issues. The approach could be improved, but the above is more important.		For now, the research only uses the methodology written on the paper. The development of the methodology can be used as further research.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for your work. Anyway, I find it hard to accept your article. I think at least some limitations should be recognized:

 

-         You keep this sentence, "where j is country export destination country k”. Please, this is ‘bad English’. Please write “where j is the country of destination of exports from country k”. That’s the reason I highlighted it!

-          I would change the next sentence related to Figure 2 to recognize your approach has some limitations. “Figure 2 shows that VS, as a proxy for NGP, and increases in labor and capital, which are influenced by wages and mechanization, are seen to be related to fair treatment in employment, namely gender and skill (managerial and administrative) segregation.” Actually, calling it a theoretical approach, with a figure without explanation (what you write is no explanation at all), is daring.

-         Anyway, I would then add another sentence indicating that the “theoretical approach” used is quite simple.

-        You wrote in your reply, “Proportion of women as an indicator of "fair employment" because one form of justice is segregation based on gender. This means that the greater the number of female workers, the fairer it will be.” I took it from the beginning, of course. My view is that you at least should admit the limitations of this idea, incomplete at best.

-        It is apparent from your words that you want to keep the first part of section 4 in that place. Ok. But if so at least use subsections to improve readability.

The paper could be accepted provided that you are explicitly accepting its limitations

Author Response

We have adjusted it based on the notes from Reviewer 2. Please suggest again if there is anything we still need to revise. Thank You

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf