Digital Economy Development and the Urban–Rural Income Gap: Intensifying or Reducing
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Overall, a very solid paper, supported by rigorous empirical analysis. A few things can be addressed to further strengthen the paper.
1/ for Figures 1 and 3, please provide the sources of the data.
2/ some theoretical issues in Section 2, theoretical mechanisms:
To accurately understand the impact of digitalization on rural income, the authors first need to provide a background discussion on the income structure in rural areas. In China case, at least two salient features must be noted: first, there are substantial non-farming (i.e., industrial and commercial) economic activities in rural areas, but the paper's discussion is largely limited just to the impact of digitalization on agriculture; second, even for many farming households in China, their main source of income is not farming, but wage work in non-farming sectors (either through migrant work or local employment). Because of these two conditions, the impact of digitalization on rural income is far more complex than what the paper has discussed.
The paper repeatedly refers to the "low level of farmers' use of digital technology", yet no reference or data are presented to support this. If digital technology only refers to smartphone use and internet access, then the rural-urban difference may not be as pronounced as the authors claim. Age is probably a more important factor. In any case, some substantiation is needed.
A theoretical challenge to the long-term, U-shaped trend of rural-urban income is that people can and do move. So, when rural-urban income starts to rise, rural residents may increase their migration to cities to seek higher income; and conversely, when it declines, more rural migrants may return from cities. We all know that rural-to-urban migration is massive in China, so the model will have to take into consideration the impact of migration on rural-urban inequality.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1.First of all, this paper makes a detailed study on the impact of digital economy on urban-rural income gap, enriching the research results in this field and echoing the previous research results. However, the problem of this paper also lies in the following: The innovation of this paper still needs to be strengthened. How to explore the influence mechanism of digital economy on urban-rural income gap from a deeper or new perspective may be a direction worth thinking about.
2.In the part of theoretical mechanism, the continuation of each paragraph lacks logic and is slightly stiff.
3. Figure1 has a drawing error, please check carefully, the line shape does not match the legend.
4. In terms of model construction, please carefully check whether the model formula is correct and whether the explanation of each indicator is accurate and complete.
5. Figure3 and Figure4 were blurred and inconsistent in size.
6. First of all, although the endogeneity test was carried out in the robustness test, the relevant statistics of the endogeneity test were not fully reported. Secondly, whether to add the relevant robustness test can be considered to make the results more convincing.
7. The premise of using DID model is whether the experimental group and the control group meet the hypothesis of parallel trend. Although the trend chart of theil index in pilot and non-pilot provinces is drawn in this paper, can we empirically test whether the two meet the hypothesis of parallel trend, so as to make the results more scientific?
8. When analyzing the impact of digital divide, the paper points out that one of the reasons for this phenomenon is the lack of learning and application of digital-related technologies in rural areas and the loss of young rural labor force. Therefore, in terms of policy suggestions, can we combine the research results to solve the above problems?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
1. The regression results of the spatial Dubin model include the spatial effect rho of the lag term of the explained variable. Therefore, in the model construction of the study design, please confirm whether the spatial Dubin model includes the spatial lag term of the explained variable.
2. According to the results of the parallel trend test in this paper, firstly, in the first one period, the first two periods, and the first four periods of policy implementation, it is significantly negative, and only in the first three periods is insignificant, which cannot support the hypothesis of parallel trend to a certain extent. Secondly, according to the effect of the policy implementation, the impact of the policy on the urban-rural income gap has turned positive since the beginning of the policy, which indicates that the policy of "Broadband Rural" expands the urban-rural income gap instead, which is inconsistent with the benchmark regression result of DID in this paper. Based on the above problems, here are some aspects to solve them: (1) Check whether the process of parallel trend test is accurate. (2) Try to use the year of policy implementation or different previous years as the base year to eliminate the collinearity problem. (3) Add control variables and combine them with method 2 to see if better results can be obtained. (4) Use PSM for improvement. (5) If good results cannot be obtained, theoretical analysis can be used to explain the causes and practical basis of this situation.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
