Review Reports - The Influence of Aid for Trade on Human Development in South Asia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is written well, however, several changes are required

1) Page 1, "Since the 1970s, the concept of human development has been developed by Pakistani economist Mahbub ul Haq [1]." I am not sure if you are claiming that the author started the concept. The sentence needs to be reframed. Also, the reference does not seem to be correct.

2) Refrain from statements like "The state of the environment continued to deteriorate, and natural resources are wasted needlessly in this region." (Page 2).

3) Page 3: " It is evidence from the literature that many studies have been carried out related to aid for trade, but those studies that assess the impacts of aid for trade employ quantitative analyzes and limit their focus to assessing the impact of aid for trade on trade, economic growth, export diversification and do not consider its role in human development." Where are the references?

4) Motivation is missing in the Introduction. Also, contributions need to be developed better in the Introduction.

5) Missing research question

6) Why are you introducing the hypothesis in the Results section? It should come before. Also, need to explain the hypothesis. It should be in the model section. Very confusing to read this section.

7) The concept of foreign aid and FDI is mixed up in the paper. The conclusion section needs to be rewritten as it does not make sense.

8) It is not clear how you picked the variables in the model. It seems arbitrary and needs sound backing from the literature.

Since the 1970s, the concept of human

development has been developed by Pakistani economist Mahbub ul Haq [1].

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer 1

The paper is written well, however, several changes are required.

Authors’ response: Thanks for your in-depth review. The above statement has been revised. These changes can be verified in the revised version and also added reference.

2) Refrain from statements like "The state of the environment continued to deteriorate, and natural resources are wasted needlessly in this region." (Page 2).

Authors’ response: Thanks for your in-depth review. The statement on Page 2 has been refrained. These changes can be verified in the revised version.

Authors’ response Thank you for your valuable comments. References have been included in the introduction and in the references section. These changes can be verified in the revised version of the manuscript.

4) Motivation is missing in the Introduction. Also, contributions need to be developed better in the Introduction.

Authors’ response: Thank you for your suggestions. We have incorporated contribution into the Introduction section. These can be verified in the revised version of the manuscript.

5) Missing research question.

Authors’ response: Thanks for your in-depth review .The research question has been included at the end of the introduction. These changes can be verified in the revised version of the manuscript.

6) Why are you introducing the hypothesis in the Results section? It should come before. Also, need to explain the hypothesis. It should be in the model section. Very confusing to read this section.

Authors’ response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have revised the mentioned section keeping in view the reviewer’s comments.

7) The concept of foreign aid and FDI is mixed up in the paper. The conclusion section needs to be rewritten as it does not make sense.

Authors’ response: Thank you for your comments. The difference between foreign Aid and FDI was incorporated in the revised version of the manuscript. Foreign Direct Investment (FDI),and foreign aid are different types of international flows received by countries .These changes can be verified in the revised version

8) It is not clear how you picked the variables in the model. It seems arbitrary and needs sound backing from the literature.

Authors’ response: Thanks for your in-depth review. The justifications of the variables have been added in the methodology section.

Reviewer 2 Report

Although the topic of this research study is interesting but, I think, authors should apply the comments indicated below to increase the quality of research justification, contributions, and findings.

First, the similarity report indicates a high level of similarity (37% https://www.turnitin.com) so I suggest reducing the similarity.

Abstract

A better presentation of the aim of the paper and what is new and original for this paper.

Introduction

“The rest of the paper is organized as follows. The second part of the article is related to the literature review. The third and fourth parts consist of the research methodology and the discussion of the results, respectively. The last section of the manuscript is related to the conclusion and policy recommendations”. What is the originality of this research? Paper research gap and originality should be better presented at the end of introduction section.

Pleas argument why is this study necessary? Explain what the originality and value of the proposed research. Why is the study analyze date fro the period 2005-2019? This should be stated in the final paragraphs of introduction and conclusion sections.

Literature Review

[16] the influence of foreign aid on human development indicators was used to analyze aid effectiveness. -I suggest reformulating and don’t start with the references.

[17] developed an empirical study to show an effect that aid contributes to public spending and thus contributes to well-being. -I suggest reformulating and don’t start with the references.

[18] conducted research for Rwanda, one of the poorest countries in the world, with a high proportion of people employed in agriculture. . -I suggest reformulating and don’t start with the references.

[19] examined the effectiveness of aid for trade and foreign direct investment on human development for 91 underdeveloped countries in different income groups between agricultural and non-agricultural economies, they used random effects and fixed effects models. Empirical results showed that aid for trade flows had a positive influence on poverty reduction, but the effect varies between different income groups in less developed countries. -I suggest reformulating and don’t start with the references.

Also, pleas add some information about the GAAP in the literature? Why do you study this subject?

Results and Discussions

Table 3 articulates the descriptive statistics of the data series used in this study. These are mean, maximum value, minimum value, and standard deviation. The highest average HDI value recorded for Bangladesh (0.81), and the lowest for Nepal (0.54). The highest aid for trade $1,684.32 million received by India, which is the highest aid among all other countries, with the smallest $28.62 billion received by Bhutan. The highest population growth was recorded in India (1.2%) and the lowest (0.7%) in Sri Lanka. Highest average value of consumer price index 123.2 for Nepal ,with lowest CPI value 111.55 for Sri Lanka. India has highest average value of remittances at $58317.2 million, lowest average value for Bhutan at $20.61 million. India has highest average FDI $33553.14 million, and Bhutan has the lowest FDI $ 22.20 million.

I suggest indicating table 3 at the end. It is inappropriate to start a subception with Table 3…..

Pleas add some information after Table 7. The results of diagnostic tests.

A better connection to the literature and the personal contributions where well in this discussion section. What is different and what is common with the literature? Pleas connect the results to the existing literature and mention your contributions and what is new.

Conclusion and policy recommendations

I suggest a separate part of policy recommendations and a separate part of conclusions. Also I suggest to highlight also the: Managerial Implication; Practical/Social Implications and Future Research. And also to highlight what practical/professional and academic consequences will this study have for the future of scientific literature?

Good Luck!

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First, the similarity report indicates a high level of similarity (37% https://www.turnitin.com) so I suggest reducing the similarity.

Authors’ response: Thanks for your in-depth review. We have reduced the similarity index to the acceptable range.

Abstract

A better presentation of the aim of the paper and what is new and original for this paper.

Authors’ response Thanks for your in-depth review. Abstract have been revised

Introduction

Pleas argument why is this study necessary? Explain what the originality and value of the proposed research. Why is the study analyze date from the period 2005-2019? This should be stated in the final paragraphs of introduction and conclusion sections.

Authors’ response: Thanks for your suggestions. We have explained originality, value of proposed research and reason of the analyze the date from the period 2005-2019? in the introduction section. These can be verified in the revised version of the manuscript.

Literature Review

[16] the influence of foreign aid on human development indicators was used to analyze aid effectiveness. -I suggest reformulating and don’t start with the references.

[17] developed an empirical study to show an effect that aid contributes to public spending and thus contributes to well-being. -I suggest reformulating and don’t start with the references.

Also, pleas add some information about the GAAP in the literature? Why do you study this subject? Authors’ response: Thank you for your suggestions. We have incorporated suggested changes and added some information about GAP in the Literature Review sections. These can be verified in the revised version of the manuscript.

Results and Discussions

I suggest indicating table 3 at the end. It is inappropriate to start a subception with Table 3…..

Authors’ response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have revised the mentioned section keeping in view the reviewer’s comments.

Pleas add some information after Table 7. The results of diagnostic tests.

Authors’ response: Thank you for your suggestions. We have connected results with existing literatures and added contribution of the study in the discussion sections. These can be verified in the revised version of the manuscript.

Conclusion and policy recommendations

Authors’ response: Thank you for your suggestions. We have separated part of policy recommendations and conclusion and incorporated managerial implications. These can be verified in the revised version of the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

The remit of the paper is to explore the impact of aid for trade on human development in South Asian countries for the period 2005-2019. The topic is interesting and certainly consistent with the contents to be proposed to the readers of "Sustainability".

Please find attached the comments. Thank you.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 3

1 Reviewer's comments to the Author (s)

The remit of the paper is to explore the impact of aid for trade on human development in South Asian countries for the period 2005-2019. The topic is interesting, and certainly consistent with the contents to be proposed to the readers of "Sustainability".

However, the abstract should be improved to be read with pleasure.

Authors’ response: Thanks for your suggestions. We have revised the abstract keeping in view the reviewer’s comments.

The author(s) must read the manuscript thoroughly to correct all grammar errors. More often I find it difficult to comprehend some sentences. I was expecting to see scientific writing and phrases. I recommend the manuscript to a native speaker for assistance.

Authors’ response: Thank you for your suggestions. We thoroughly checked the manuscript for grammatical errors and improve the revised manuscript by removing grammatical errors. We have rephrased the necessary sentences/paragraphs. These changes can be verified in the revised version of the manuscript.

INTRODUCTION

There could have been a conceptual framework under the introduction for the readers to understand the entire work’ as it stands now the inro is weak.

Authors’ response: Thanks for your suggestions. We have added a conceptual framework under introduction section. These can be verified in the revised version of the manuscript.

METHODS

I suggest that you introduce a brief description of the study area and the reason for choosing it.

Authors’ response: Thanks for your suggestions. We have included brief description of the study area and reason choosing in introduction section. These can be verified in the revised version of the manuscript.

RESULT AND DISCUSSION –

The discussion of the results should be strengthened by relating to other literature findings. (Similarities or not) What does the result tell you? The meaning and implications of the findings were all missing in the discussion.

Authors’ response: Thank you for your comments. We have strengthened our results by relating them to other literature and interpreting the results in the discussions section and the implications of the results in the policy section. These can be verified in the revised version of the manuscript.

CONCLUSION

I suggest that the authors should provide limitations and future research in your conclusion

Authors’ response: Thank you for your suggestions. We have included limitations of this study and future research at the end of the manuscript. These changes can be verified in the revised version of the manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I am satisfied with the revisions

Author Response

Thank you for endorsing the manuscript for publication in the journal Sustainability.

Reviewer 2 Report

I suggest reviewing the paper and to reduces the similarity. Spelling correction is also needed.

Good Luck!

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestions. We have reviewed the whole manuscript for necessary correction. We have further reduced the similarity index. We have also reviewed the whole manuscript for grammatical and spelling mistakes. We have corrected grammatical and spelling mistakes from the whole manuscript. Changes can be verified in the revised version of the manuscript.