Key Drivers of Public Debt Levels: Empirical Evidence from Africa
, Karel Malec, Joseph Phiri, Mikhail Krivko, Kamil Maitah, Mansoor Maitah and Luboš Smutka
Alvaro Luiz Neuenfeldt Júnior
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The present manuscript focuses on key determining drivers that have a direct and indirect impact on the rising level of public debt in Africa on a panel of 47 African nations for the 12 period 2000-2018. Studying the causes of economic growth considering the average input data verified in 47 African countries is not an assertive strategy. I believe that the study should be conducted individually by country, in order that specific factors that influence economic variations of each country would be considered, together with notorious factors known as corruption, for example.
Regarding the context of the research, I believe that the presented manuscript has quality, but it deals superficially and in a generic way about a complex topic that is difficult for any scientific research. I do not believe that a generalization of the results considering the African continent as a single agent is the best strategy to address the problem, as well as the use of only one methodology, in this case the GMM, is enough to assess the impact of factors on a country's economic growth or region. The authors should focus on obtaining more accurate results about one or a few countries, understanding not only how generic factors influence the economy, but also which specific factors influence, for example, the market behavior of commodities supply and demand.
Finally, the manuscript has potential, but it does not have a direct relationship with the thematic investment, growth, and sustainability. The text is clearly written and the structure of the manuscript contributes to a good understanding of the ways in which the problem resolution was developed.
Some minor comments and suggestions are described below:
- The font of figure 1 is different and the size is not appropriate with the text format;
- The legend of the axes in figure 1 was missing;
- Equation 1 is not required;
- Why were some input data shown in table 1 not inserted in equation 2?
- Do not use “Source: Authors’ own calculation”.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. Sincerely, my best regards.
Author Response
Response to Editor and Reviewers
First, we would like to express our gratitude for the work you dedicated to investigating our research, identifying the points for improvement, and suggesting ways for achieving that. We are fully aware that your suggestions and recommendations are very important for improving our research and the way it is presented in this article.
This letter is to confirm that all final corrections and suggestions from the Editor-in-Chief and Reviewers have been addressed, corrected, and implemented. In addition, the authors have reviewed the manuscript thoroughly for possible style and language changes or substitutions.
Thank you and we hope we have answered all your suggestions and recommendations and improved our research.
Some minor comments and suggestions are described below:
- The font of figure 1 is different and the size is not appropriate with the text format.
Response: The font of figure 1 has been updated to the correct text format of this journal.
- The legend of the axes in figure 1 was missing.
Response: The legend of figure one has been updated.
- Equation 1 is not required.
Response: Equation 1 has been removed as per your recommendation.
- Why were some input data shown in table 1 not inserted in equation 2?
Response: The missing input data has been explained as the vector of control variables in the equation
- Do not use “Source: Authors’ own calculation”.
Response: This has been revised.
The level of the language was improved as the final proofreading has been done.
In a nutshell, there has been a proper revision of the manuscript thanks to all the comments and recommendations of the reviewers.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. Sincerely, my best regards.
Reviewer 2 Report
Paper represents interesting contribution to the existing literature. English language revision needed.
Author Response
Response to Editor and Reviewers
First, we would like to express our gratitude for the work you dedicated to investigating our research, identifying the points for improvement, and suggesting ways for achieving that. We are fully aware that your suggestions and recommendations are very important for improving our research and the way it is presented in this article.
This letter is to confirm that all final corrections and suggestions from the Editor-in-Chief and Reviewers have been addressed, corrected, and implemented. In addition, the authors have reviewed the manuscript thoroughly for possible style and language changes or substitutions.
Thank you and we hope we have answered all your suggestions and recommendations and improved our research.
Paper represents interesting contribution to the existing literature. English language revision needed.
Response: The level of the language was improved as the final proofreading has been done.
In a nutshell, there has been a proper revision of the manuscript thanks to all the comments and recommendations of the reviewers.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. Sincerely, my best regards.
Reviewer 3 Report
Summary
The manuscript brings an interesting study on the problem of rising debt levels in Africa. The study explores the critical determining drivers that directly and indirectly influence the rising level of public debt in Africa. The main contribution is providing empirical evidence on the determining factors of public debt levels in Africa, which remain scant.
Broad comments
The manuscript has several opportunities for improvement. Although the manuscript provides rich general literature support, it fails to establish a connection to the previous scientific evidence both in the methodological framework and discussion of the results. It includes a pretty comprehensive literature review and, as it seems at first glance, a pretty sound statistical analysis lacking the connection between the two.
Consequently, the manuscript lacks to express the scientific contribution of the research. Accordingly, for this revision term, I focus on the problem of the connection to the scientific ground. I am not giving the comments to the empirical analysis, which seems to be statistically correct. I will check it in detail in the second revision step.
Besides, the manuscript does not convince a reader of scientific originality. It could be derived from a conceptual or operational view or the scientific meaning of the results. Again, it needs the mirror of previous research.
Furthermore, the manuscript lacks theoretical support. It does not unveil on which theories it is based.
Introduction
The first part of the introduction focuses too much on general issues (about 25 citations at the general level). I suggest shortening this part of the manuscript.
The interpretation of figure 1.1 is pretty overwhelming. The problem is not the third place amongst the regions but the growth. I suggest presenting or at least considering chain indices in the interpretation.
The core concept of the manuscript, public debt drivers, is discussed in a single paragraph supported by a single quotation. The imbalance has to be fixed.
The purpose or/and research questions or/and hypotheses should be shortly presented in the introduction.
The scientific contribution and originality should be exposed at least shortly in the introduction.
Literature review
The literature review is acceptable. However, it seems the content to be assorted randomly. I suggest adding an introduction with an explanation of the approach to reporting. The synthesis of the section is poor. The manuscript claims its originality with: An empirical review of previous studies revealed that there were few or scant studies, and The foremost novelty of our study is to investigate the impact of corruption, government investment, government consumption, tax revenues, exchange rate, inflation, military expenditure, and GDP on public debt level in Africa from 2000–2018. In my opinion, the explanation does not support the claim of originality. Besides, in claiming originality, one has to lean on the previous research. The same is true for the decision for the panel model.
The research questions section is a part of the literature review, which is somehow awkward. Besides, the hypotheses would be more appropriate for this research than the research questions. The hypotheses should be supported not by certain articles only but also by suitable theory (conceptualization).
The Baseline Data and Model
The data and the model are well presented. The section lacks support from similar studies. I suggest presenting some similar previous research corpus and discussing the similarities and differences to the research.
Empirical Results and Discussion
Empirical results are well presented. However, the discussion is divided over the research questions what is pretty awkward. With the change to a single general hypothesis, the discussion will get a general framework that will hopefully allow the authors to improve the discussion to a complete picture referencing the previous research.
Conclusions
Conclusion well presents the practical consequences of the results. However, it lacs to present a scientific view of the research.
Author Response
Response to Editor and Reviewers
First, we would like to express our gratitude for the work you dedicated to investigating our research, identifying the points for improvement, and suggesting ways for achieving that. We are fully aware that your suggestions and recommendations are very important for improving our research and the way it is presented in this article.
This letter is to confirm that all final corrections and suggestions from the Editor-in-Chief and Reviewers have been addressed, corrected, and implemented. In addition, the authors have reviewed the manuscript thoroughly for possible style and language changes or substitutions.
Thank you and we hope we have answered all your suggestions and recommendations and improved our research.
Introduction
The first part of the introduction focuses too much on general issues (about 25 citations at the general level). I suggest shortening this part of the manuscript.
Response: The introduction to the study has been duly modified to capture the focus and key issues pertaining to the topic. A clearer theoretical approach has been also adopted for the better conceptualization of issues have been discussed. All factual statements have been appropriately referenced to acknowledge the right authorities. In-text citations have been adjusted to include texts for clarity.
The interpretation of figure 1.1 is pretty overwhelming. The problem is not the third place amongst the regions but the growth. I suggest presenting or at least considering chain indices in the interpretation.
Response: We have modified and adjusted the interpretation of figure 1 per your excellent recommendation
The core concept of the manuscript, public debt drivers, is discussed in a single paragraph supported by a single quotation. The imbalance has to be fixed.
Response: The imbalance of the core concept of the manuscript which is the public has been duly revised.
The purpose or/and research questions or/and hypotheses should be shortly presented in the introduction.
Response: This has been revised
The scientific contribution and originality should be exposed at least shortly in the introduction.
Response: This has been revised and modified
Literature review
The literature review is acceptable. However, it seems the content to be assorted randomly. I suggest adding an introduction with an explanation of the approach to reporting. The synthesis of the section is poor. The manuscript claims its originality with: An empirical review of previous studies revealed that there were few or scant studies, and The foremost novelty of our study is to investigate the impact of corruption, government investment, government consumption, tax revenues, exchange rate, inflation, military expenditure, and GDP on public debt level in Africa from 2000–2018. In my opinion, the explanation does not support the claim of originality. Besides, in claiming originality, one has to lean on the previous research. The same is true for the decision for the panel model.
Response: The literature review has been modified to capsulate the objective, the sample used, the methodology adopted as well as findings. The main contributions of these resources are made clearer. Recent studies necessary for the research have been included in the study to assess the current trends. This has also contributed to the interpretation of findings. Suggested literature by reviewers have been added and duly cited.
The research questions section is a part of the literature review, which is somehow awkward. Besides, the hypotheses would be more appropriate for this research than the research questions. The hypotheses should be supported not by certain articles only but also by suitable theory (conceptualization).
Response: The research question section has been modified and added to the introduction section. We decided to maintain the research question section as it is more appropriate for our study. We would consider your recommendation of using a hypothesis in our future studies.
The Baseline Data and Model
The data and the model are well presented. The section lacks support from similar studies. I suggest presenting some similar previous research corpus and discussing the similarities and differences to the research.
Response: The baseline data and model have been modified.
Empirical Results and Discussion
Empirical results are well presented. However, the discussion is divided over the research questions what is pretty awkward. With the change to a single general hypothesis, the discussion will get a general framework that will hopefully allow the authors to improve the discussion to a complete picture referencing the previous research.
Response: Recent studies necessary for the research have been included in the study to assess the current trends. This has also contributed to the interpretation of findings. Suggested literature by reviewers has been added and duly cited.
Conclusions
Conclusion well presents the practical consequences of the results. However, it lacs to present a scientific view of the research.
Response: The level of the language was improved as the final proofreading has been done. In a nutshell, there has been a proper revision of the manuscript thanks to all the comments and recommendations of the reviewers.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. Sincerely, my best regards.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
First of all, I congratulate the authors for the changes made. Regarding the manuscript merit for publication, I keep the recommendation, showing the arguments presented in the first review:
I believe that the study should be conducted individually by country, in order that specific factors that influence economic variations of each country would be considered, together with notorious factors known as corruption, for example.
Regarding the context of the research, I believe that the presented manuscript has quality, but it deals superficially and in a generic way about a complex topic that is difficult for any scientific research. I do not believe that a generalization of the results considering the African continent as a single agent is the best strategy to address the problem, as well as the use of only one methodology, in this case the GMM, is enough to assess the impact of factors on a country's economic growth or region. The authors should focus on obtaining more accurate results about one or a few countries, understanding not only how generic factors influence the economy, but also which specific factors influence, for example, the market behavior of commodities supply and demand.
Finally, the manuscript has potential, but it does not have a direct relationship with the thematic investment, growth, and sustainability.
My best regards.
Author Response
Response to Editor and Reviewers
First, we would like to express our gratitude for the work you dedicated to investigating our research, identifying the points for improvement, and suggesting ways for achieving that. We are fully aware that your suggestions and recommendations are very important for improving our research and the way it is presented in this article.
This letter is to confirm that all final corrections and suggestions from the Editor-in-Chief and Reviewers have been addressed, corrected, and implemented. In addition, the authors have reviewed the manuscript thoroughly for possible style and language changes or substitutions.
Thank you and we hope we have answered all your suggestions and recommendations and improved our research.
Reviewer 3 Report
Key Drivers of Public Debt Levels: Empirical evidence from Africa
Summary
What about original scientific (theoretical or methodological) contribution?
Broad comments
The manuscript is still lacking in exposing original scientific contributions. The introduction is a case description and does not discuss any general scientific issue. The manuscript bases its contribution on filling the gap in the knowledge on the determining factors of public debt levels in Africa. In my opinion, the formulation is too narrow to support the scientific ground of the research.
Nevertheless, the new version of the manuscript provides a comprehensive description of a general research framework and general research challenge.
Introduction
The introduction should not be divided into subsections, I think. I suggest a slight reconstruction of the research questions sections. The authors should add a general question at first, then list all questions and only after that the explanations.
The scientific contribution and originality should be presented after the research questions.
Now the manuscript has more or less all the support needed. Still, the exposition of the scientific contribution should be generalized.
Literature review
The new version is much better. However, the synthesis is still being focused on the Africa case. Besides, I suggest adding the conceptual and operational model presentation supported by the previous research, which is not merely theoretical but deals with similar general research challenges.
The Baseline Data and Model
Line 352 – an empty quotation, need to provide some information on quoted papers.
Empirical Results and Discussion
OK.
Conclusions
Conclusion well presents the practical consequences of the results. However, it lacks to expose the scientific view of the research. It needs to be improved with the presentation of an original broader scientific contribution.
Author Response
Response to Editor and Reviewers
First, we would like to express our gratitude for the work you dedicated to investigating our research, identifying the points for improvement, and suggesting ways for achieving that. We are fully aware that your suggestions and recommendations are very important for improving our research and the way it is presented in this article.
This letter is to confirm that all final corrections and suggestions from the Editor-in-Chief and Reviewers have been addressed, corrected, and implemented. In addition, the authors have reviewed the manuscript thoroughly for possible style and language changes or substitutions.
Thank you and we hope we have answered all your suggestions and recommendations and improved our research.
Introduction
The introduction should not be divided into subsections, I think. I suggest a slight reconstruction of the research questions sections. The authors should add a general question at first, then list all questions and only after that the explanations.
The scientific contribution and originality should be presented after the research questions.
Now the manuscript has more or less all the support needed. Still, the exposition of the scientific contribution should be generalized.
Response: The introduction to the study has been duly modified to capture the focus and key issues pertaining to the topic. We have revised the research question section as recommended by the reviewer.
The scientific contribution and originality have been revised in the manuscript
All factual statements have been appropriately referenced to acknowledge the right authorities. In-text citations have been adjusted to include texts for clarity.
Literature review
The new version is much better. However, the synthesis is still being focused on the Africa case. Besides, I suggest adding the conceptual and operational model presentation supported by the previous research, which is not merely theoretical but deals with similar general research challenges.
Response: The literature review has been modified to capsulate the objective, the sample used, the methodology adopted as well as findings. The main contributions of these resources are made clearer. Recent studies necessary for the research have been included in the study to assess the current trends. This has also contributed to the interpretation of findings. Suggested literatures by reviewers have been added and duly cited.
The Baseline Data and Model
Line 352 – an empty quotation, need to provide some information on quoted papers.
Response: In-text citations have been adjusted to include texts for clarity
Response:
Empirical Results and Discussion
OK.
Conclusions
Conclusion well presents the practical consequences of the results. However, it lacks to expose the scientific view of the research. It needs to be improved with the presentation of an original broader scientific contribution.
Response: The conclusion has been modified and revised to present the scientific view of the research.
The level of the language was improved as the final proofreading has been done. In a nutshell, there has been a proper revision of the manuscript thanks to all the comments and recommendations of the reviewers.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. Sincerely, my best regards.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
