Who Is Willing to Participate in Local Governance? Modernization of Shared Governance in China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I believe the authors identify an important question to examine, and the paper has some potential. I provide some comments and suggestions for the authors to further improve the paper. First, the authors need to give the definition and scope of local governance at the frontend of the paper. Second, the authors need to provide the economic significance of the results in addition to their statistical significance. Also, use some approaches to mitigate potential correlated-omitted-variables bias with the regression analysis. Provide R squares and numbers of observations for all the regression results in Table 4. Third, for those citizens that are identified to be less willing to get involved in local governance, what measures could be taken to incentivize them to do so? The authors need to use a separate subsection to expatiate on this issue in the conclusion remarks. Also, give the implications of the findings for the jurisdictions’ sustainable development goals. Fourth, enclose the original survey questionnaire in an appendix for the paper.
Author Response
The authors sincerely appreciate all the comments and suggestions from the reviewer. We feel that we have now appropriately addressed the reviewer’s concerns.
1. The authors need to give the definition and scope of local governance at the front end of the paper.
Response: The definition and scope of local governance have been clarified. As explained at the end of page 1, “Citizens have been encouraged to participate in local governance, in terms of providing public service and improving the quality of life in their local communities. The ways of citizen participation include public hearing, polls, advisory committees, public and private co-production, and interest groups.”
2. the authors need to provide the economic significance of the results in addition to their statistical significance. Also, use some approaches to mitigate potential correlated-omitted-variables bias with the regression analysis. Provide R squares and numbers of observations for all the regression results in Table 4.
Response: (1) Economic significance indicates the rationality of the analysis results behind statistical significance. For analysis results supporting hypotheses, the economic significance is easy to understand based on the discussions of hypotheses. For analysis results rejecting hypotheses, we have added the explanation in order to justify the rationality of the analysis results. For example, regarding the relationship between residence and participation willingness, we explain “It indicates that, along with the modernization of shared governance, the policies and agendas of shared governance has been comprehensively implemented in both of the urban and rural areas. Thus, people living in urban or rural areas did not show significant difference in the willingness of participation.” (page 11).
（2）The study applied the variance inflation factor (VIF) values to test the multi-collinearity of the independent variables. Results are displayed in Table 4, which show no multi-collinearity among the independent variables.
（3）R squares and numbers of observations for all the regression results have been added in Table 5.
3. For those citizens that are identified to be less willing to get involved in local governance, what measures could be taken to incentivize them to do so? The authors need to use a separate subsection to expatiate on this issue in the conclusion remarks. Also, give the implications of the findings for the jurisdictions’sustainable development goals.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. We have discussed the measures to incentivize those less willing to participate in local governance with a separate paragraph. From the perspective of local government, we have also discussed the implications of the findings for the jurisdictions’ sustainable development goals. As displayed on page 12-13 as below,
“This study suggests a refined technique to incentivize those with low willingness to participate in local governance. Firstly, the government, policy makers and advocacy organizations should identify the groups with weak willingness of participation. As revealed in the findings, it is suggested to encourage female citizens, non-CPC members, the elderly, and citizens with low educational level and polarized income levels to participate in governance. Secondly, individualized and multiple strategies are necessary to be adopted to motivate these citizens to get involved in governance. For example, besides protecting the basic rights and interests, the subjective initiative of the female citizens, non-CPC members, the elderly, and people with a low level of income and education should be stimulated. Based on the behaviour logic of individuals in Chinese society, the function of family and social network should also be emphasized in promoting these groups of people to participate. Thirdly, as there are regional differences regarding who is more or less willing to participate in local governance, the local government should encourage those with high willingness to play a leading role and mobilize other citizens to get involved. The local government is also suggested to advocate the sinking of Governance Center, promote digital technology, diversify participation channels, and improve legal and institutional systems of citizens’ participation in local governance for jurisdictions’ sustainable development goals [13,65].”
4. Enclose theoriginal survey questionnaire in an appendix for the paper.
Response: The original survey questionnaire has been enclosed in the appendix B on page 15.
All the amendments are marked in red in the manuscript.
Thank you very much again for the constructive suggestions!
Reviewer 2 Report
After carefully reading the revised manuscript, I feel that the paper topic is interesting, but I found that the manuscript does not meet the minimum requirements for publication in a high-ranked journal like Sustainability.
Using quantitative data collection, the manuscript examined the citizens’ willingness to participate in governance, but there is no broad conclusion and implication to explain how the findings contribute to the existing body of knowledge. However, it is insufficient in terms of addressing new theoretical arguments, presenting convincible collection data instruments, and discussing implications for development policies and strategies beyond China.
Introduction:
While the authors addressed citizens' crucial roles in the implementation and innovation of shared governance, I don’t find what is main question or a problem that has not been answered by any of the existing studies or research within the research field in China or /and beyond China. While the authors said few studies have revealed citizens’ attitudes toward shared governance in China, there is no evidence to support their statement. However, the research gap has been missed.
Methodology:
The research method description is too general. The authors have missed justifying their reasons to employ the current method, and the method's suitability has not been discussed in the study.
The authors employed a questionnaire for data collection, but there is no information on how the questionnaire parts have been developed. A clear explanation is needed for the questionnaire design or development. In this regard, the questions must be supported by relevant references and evidence if it has been developed, or the questionnaire must be validated if it has been designed by the authors.
Furthermore, as I found, the manuscript has missed reviewing the theoretical background and indicating a conceptual model including the study variables, however, it is required that the theory conducts the study to satisfy the research objective(s) to explore the citizens’ willingness to participate in governance.
Result:
The analysis section needs to be rewritten. The employed analysis method is too general and basic, while this part is an essential component of manuscripts in high-ranked journals, like Sustainability. However, the collected data is not convincingly analyzed. The authors need to indicate the conceptual model for the research based on the selected theory(theories) and then perform the analysis part.
Discussion and Conclusion:
This part is essential for a high-quality paper. It is suggested that the author re-organize this part. The current discussion/conclusion is not comprehensive, and it is not convincing enough to implicate the research findings beyond the local case.
In addition, please make sure the conclusions section underscores the scientific value-added of the paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results from an international perspective.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I want to thank the authors for the opportunity to read their work. The article “Does Shared Governance Work in China? Citizens’ Willingness to Participate in Local Governance” represents a valuable contribution to various disciplines, from political sciences, sociology, and international relations to communication studies, among other related disciplines. Therefore, the following comments are driven to increase the overall quality, clarify some points and offer a constructive review.
1. The research question inquires if "Does shared governance work in China?". However, the discussion and the whole article drive on citizens' attitudes and engagement "will" on public participation, civic engagement, and the links on citizen's participation in local governance as sustainability issues. In addition, there is a discussion on the general movement in China, from social management to social governance under State's control. Hence, as a consequence, we suggest adjusting the article's title to be more accurate with the proposed research object.
2. The question (Lines 30-31) seems difficult to readers. “Is there any evidence from different contexts contributing to the innovation of shared governance and citizen participation for sustainable local development?”. Previously, it is said that there are. Please, consider to re-write it to make the reading more fluid.
3. On the literature review and research design, we suggest incorporating and developing what we consider one of the strongest points of the article: discussing a non-wester context of citizens’ participation with such complexity as China. Astonishing, there is no mention of the UN's framework "2030 Agenda", particularly on those SDG (Sustainable Development Goals) related to making government accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels, which should be discussed in the light of the historical context of China’s communist party agenda (described by you with a great clearness). Highlighting this SGD convergence/divergence to China’s strategy and looking at it in your data would be a great contribution to the sustainability discussion. For that reason, we suggest you review and incorporate it.
Although points 1 and 3 above mentioned implies a significant review, we consider that it would make this paper sharper and more attractive to the sustainability field.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper has improved substantially. I observe that there are few variables included in the regression, triggering my concerns about potential correlated omitted variables bias with the regression results. I advise the authors to analyze the impact threshold for a confounding variable (see He et al. (2020) for example) to assure that the regression results are not subject substantially to the omitted variables bias. If this issue remains unsolved, the authors need to acknowledge the limitation of the study in the conclusion remarks.
Reference:
He, G. & Marginson, D. (2020). The impact of insider trading on analyst coverage and forecasts. Accounting Research Journal 33(3): 499-521.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Based on the first round of comments, and on my own reading, I am afraid that I cannot accept the manuscript as it stands. I found the theory and conceptual framework (or model) are still missing, and the authors’ explanation does not convincingly address the reasons for the lack of theory selection and conceptual framework (or model).
Furthermore, the presented implication is still poor in the last part of the manuscript. I must say again the theoretical and practical implications are an essential part of a high-quality paper.
However, I am willing to reconsider a substantially revised version that carefully responds to the comments. Therefore, I encourage the authors to revise the manuscript and re-submit it for sustainability. I do not think the changes are too difficult.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
After a careful analysis, I consider that the authors have done all the major reviews and answered all the questions and missings pointed out.
Author Response
Thank you very much again for the constructive suggestions. They really help to improve the quality of this manuscript.
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Based on the second round of comments, and on my own reading, I am afraid that I cannot accept the manuscript as it stands. I found the review of theoretical background is still missing, and the authors’ explanation does not convincingly address the reasons for the lack of theoretical background review. As far as I found, the authors added a theoretical framework of state-society relationships, but this term is used for the first time in the existing knowledge!
I’m so confused about the research novelty when the framework hasn’t been developed.
Furthermore, the presented implication is still poor in the conclusion and discussion parts of the manuscript. I must say again the theoretical and practical implications are an essential part of a high-quality paper.
