The Demographic Dividend or the Education Dividend? Evidence from China’s Economic Growth
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article presents a discussion of the current educational situation. The content of the article presents a clearly defined discussion. However, the conclusion and limitations section could be improved by providing global recommendations that address the issues presented in the article (for example: Explain how the findings in this article can transfer learning to a global audience with recommendations for practical use).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
It is suggested:
- Include in the ABSTRACT information about the method used.
- Declare the concepts, according to the theoretical bases, of demographic dividend, educational dividend, etc., that allow to contextualize the work in a general way.
- The discussion of a research paper seeks to compare what was found with what has been previously investigated and published. In the discussion of temporal heterogeneity, it should include conclusions or proposals of authors that allow reflection or comparison from what has already been investigated. In the discussion of spatial heterogeneity, the inclusion of other investigations should be improved.
- Thoroughly review the references so that they all adapt to the corresponding style of standards.
- Substantially improve the percentage of references whose tenure is five years or less.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
I have read your well-written paper entitled: “The Demographic Dividend or the Education Dividend in Developing Country? Evidence from China's Economic Growth.” The authors presented the impact of demographic and education dividends on economic growth.
I don't want to make up remarks because the article is competently written. The discussion in the article is adequately presented. The data in the article is chosen appropriately. The methodology and verification of the study results are adequate.
Overall, the article has a sufficient level of novelty and practical recommendations. The article may interest many researchers in related and interdisciplinary fields.
It is quite possible that I would use more factors in the research to determine economic growth and the level of development. I would also reinforce the discussion in the article. However, I would like to leave these proposals to the authors' choice.
I recommend this article for publication in the journal “Sustainability” in its current state.
Best regards,
The reviewer
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The two concepts of demographic dividend and education dividend developed in this manuscript must be clarified in a deeper way. Also, the theoretical framework, with only two references, what about the theory of the human capital of Amartya Kumar Sen?, what about the theories of development for developing countries?
The methodology paragraph must be explained in a graphic.
The manuscript lacks also, a discussion paragraph.
In the section on "Spatial heterogeneity", it should be included one map, and the reasons for these differences among the regions.
Page 11: It is said: "Chinas"
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
This paper entitled “The demographic dividend or the education dividend in developing country? Evidence from China’s economic growth” tries to shed light on the topic regarding demographic dividend, education dividend and China’s economic growth. Despite the meaningful contributions, some aspect should be addressed in order to improve the overall quality of the paper:
1. The title of this paper is “The demographic dividend or the education dividend in developing country? Evidence from China’s economic growth”. But the content only discusses China's demographic dividend and educational dividend, not other developing countries. I suggest that the topic focus on China.
2. Please, provide the research motivation of this paper in the abstract. It is not clear in the abstract section.
3. This paper takes China as an example to study the impact of demographic dividend or education dividend on economic growth. In the introduction, the background of China's demographic dividend and education dividend should be involved to elicit research questions. Meanwhile, the research purpose and possible academic contribution should be highlighted in the introduction.
4. This paper lacks a review of relevant research. Please note, that the literature review is the most important part of any research.
5. Please check that the description in the following paragraph of formula (4) is accurate. I can't find Wit/Nit, Pit/Wit, etc. In addition, explain the symbols in the formula one by one.
6. Many interaction terms are introduced into the model, which may cause multicollinearity problems. Please provide relevant inspection.
7. The study discussion is very generic and do not stem from study findings. The results of ΔlnLit, Eit-1. etc. are lacking in Table 2, and it is suggested that the author recheck all the results.
8. In the first paragraph of page 7, the interaction term Ln(wit-1)/(Nit-1)*Eit-1 between population age structure and education is negative, which can only indicate that education reduces the influence of population age structure on economic growth. Instead of increasing the demographic dividend. Suggest that the author rewrite and reorganize the discussion of the results and support your findings with relevant literature.
9. It is also necessary to discuss the policy implication in the conclusion. Please suggest some concrete and relevant policy implications based on the obtained results.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
There is a general improvement in the manuscript.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper deserves to be published in its present form.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
The author has made careful modifications, but there are still the following problems that must be modified, otherwise it cannot be accepted.
（1）The author's revision of the introduction remains unconvincing. On the basis of a detailed discussion of the research gap, the author should propose the research purpose and possible academic contribution of this paper.
（2）The author only gives the conclusion that the VIF of all variables after first-order difference is less than 30(most of them are less than 10). However, no specific results have been reported, and VIF greater than 10 is considered to have serious collinearity problems. Authors need to consider how to mitigate the effects of multicollinearity.
（3）In terms of the results and discussion, recommend that rewrite them in a more argumentative manner and use references to support the findings. The current descriptive approach could be improved to enhance the quality and rigor of the research.
（4）Although the author adds relevant policy recommendations, these recommendations do not stem from the conclusion and are not targeted. The author should put forward targeted and implementable specific suggestions based on the conclusion.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 5 Report
This revised manuscript has been improved sufficiently to be accepted.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you again for your comments, which will be very helpful in enhancing the professionalism of this paper.
We have upgraded and touched up the manuscript completely.
Best Regards,
Authors.
