Towards a Multidimensional Model for Evaluating the Sustainable Effect of FDI on the Development of Host Developing Countries: Evidence from Africa
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Abstract
There is a statement that reads: To achieve this, it opted for a multidimensional model 15 that links two opposing views (liberalism and radicalism). The study never did this. It only mentioned about liberalism in passing and it never mentioned radicalism. This statement needs to be deleted.
The abstract needs to be reworked. It reads like a summary of results rather than the abstract of a final dissertation. This new abstract should reflect on the study’s objectives, problem statement, key findings, key insights and implications for policies.
Background section
The background section needs a complete overhaul. It is not convincing at all. There is no logical flow and synergy of the main concepts of the study. the content in the background section seem to deviate from the title of the study. the study sought to evaluate the sustainable effect of FDI on development but the background section seems to be talking about FDI and growth. The issues of sustainability are not given due attention. The background should discuss the issues of FDI and sustainable development. How does FDI affect development/sustainable development. This should be your focus area.
Literature review
The same problem that was done in the background section was repeated in the literature review section. The theoretical aspect of the study failed to come up with theories that link FDI to sustainable development. Rather FDI and growth theories were presented.
The empirical literature section also filled with studies that sought to test the relationship between FDI and growth. Few studies that looked at FDI and development were reviewed. This needs to be addressed. We need to see studies that tested the relationship between FDI and development/sustainable development.
Methodology
The study is supposed to use a second genetion cointegration test (Westerlund (2007) . When CSD exists in the data, the results from the Pedroni and Kao cointegration tests may not be robust. So I suggest that the study employ Westerlund (2007).
Results
Robustness tests and or diagnostics tests are missing. These are important because they scrutinise the main results.
All results must be corroborated by literature.
Author Response
Good afternoon,
Thank you very much for your helpful comments. I managed to take them in consideration and provided reference page in the text. Please find attached the table related to the provided responses.
Regards,
Dr. Aristide
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
* Line 443 - if this is ECM specification, why y[i,t] is in level and not differenced: dy[i,t]? Just check to be sure...
* Line 459 (also, 519) - the name "Houseman" seems wrong, if you mean "Hausman"...
* Line 502 - Table 5 - after finding that 3 variables are I(1), then you show the results for their first differenced versions - and you write again I(1) - just check whether you need to put here I(0) for these differenced vars.
* Line 508-509 - you write: "The evidences from Table 6 below indicate that all series follow I(1) order", however, 3 variables show results on the test different from the others (p-value>0.10).
Author Response
Thank you very much for your helpful comments and encouragement. we have carefully considered the comments and tried to answer each one. The responses
are highlighted in green in the text and reference page are provided in the table of responses . Please find attached the table related to the provided responses.
Regards,
Dr. Aristide
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
From the overall presentation I would say that interesting research work has been done. The topic is also important for the readers of the journal. However, I have a few more significant challenges with the paper.
The aim of the paper should be included more clearly in the introduction section.
The authors should include in “Literature Review” section some research hypotheses.
The research methods used are appropriate but have limitations, and this should be mentioned. The validation of the models could be presented and justified. Furthermore, the uncertainties of the applied analysis could be discussed. Finally, it would be appropriate to specify in more detail how this research differs from the already published paper that deals with a similar topic.
The discussion and implications are rather short, and they should be extended. You need also to improve the practical and academic implications.
Moderate English changes required- “FDI contributes marginally to real GDP per capital in Africa. They also indicate that CO2 exerts a dominant and detrimental effect on real GDP per capita in this continent” (Lines 124-126)... “Our findings suggest that efforts by the government to tone down income inequality would encourage real GDP per capital 592 in the study area.” (Lines 591-593). Please pay attention to “GDP per capital” . GDP per capital or GDP per capita????
“These findings corroborate those of [70]. who found that FDI helps stimulate economic growth in the long run, although it had an adverse effect in the short run for the countries under investigation [70]. ” (Lines 629-631)
The authors have to pay attention to references inside the paper as well as the reference list. See https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions
Author Response
Thank you very for your helpful comments. The raised point out have been considered and integrated in the new manuscript.
Regards
Dr. Aristide
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
I am writing about the manuscript (sustainability-2180312) entitled “Towards a multidimensional model for evaluating sustainable effect of FDI on development of host 2 developing countries, evidence from Africa”.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. It is interesting and provides some good insight into the existing literature. I recommend for the paper substantial modifications and refinements of the present version. My comments are as follows:
1. From the very beginning of the Abstract, authors failed to address the research gap, and novelty of the study which are very important for the general readers.
2. What was the justification to select the study area, it needs to be strengthened. This is the main limitation of this study that it only focused on only specific local region so it cannot be generalized. For this reason, strong motivation needs to be built.
3. The major defect of this study is the debate or argument is not clearly stated in the introduction session. Hence, the contribution is weak in this manuscript. The authors have presented a lot of data and figures in the introduction section. I would suggest the authors enhance your theoretical discussion and arrive at your theoretical argument.
4. Prior to the objective, the contribution of the paper should be clearly mentioned that how this study is helpful for the stakeholders.
5. The authors should discuss more about the “FDI” and “economic growth” in the manuscript accordingly. The current explanation is not enough.
6. The authors should perform the VIF analysis for more brevity.
7. More explanations and interpretations must be added for the results. In this regard, it is suggested to compare the results of the present research with some similar studies which is done before and more explanations and interpretations must be added for the Results, and discussion, which are not enough.
8. The conclusion and policy recommendations are not well written. Authors should add more to this section, especially in the aspect of policy framing and implementation.
In summary, the work has the potential to be published but before it should be considered for publication, it has to pass through professional proofreading and all the highlighted points above need to be corrected and implemented.
Author Response
Thank very much for your helpful comments and suggestions. These were considered and integrated in the resubmitted revised manuscript.
Regards,
Dr. Aristide
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Literature review - the paper cites that neoclassical and endogenous growth models as the theories that underpin the study. Please note that these are economic growth theories. They do not say anything about economic development. You need to state this and show how you relate these theories to your study.
Results - I did not see the second generation panel cointegration tests.
Author Response
Thank you so much for your comments. We provided as much as possible up to our knowledge the responses and highlighted in green in the text.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments for the authors
The authors have done a great job in improving/revising this manuscript. However, some minor comments still need improvement to meet the journal standard. My comments are listed as follows:
(I) Still it is found that there are many grammatical and typo mistakes in this manuscript. The paper needs to be edited by a native English speaker.
(II) I would like to suggest that authors should update the introduction and results part. Specifically, the latest research trends, and in order to highlight the academic frontier of the research, the references of the recent year need to be referenced.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2022.10.018, https://doi.org/10.3390/su142113910, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.156662, https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2345.
(III) Figure 1 needs to increase the pixel size.
(IV) For all CO2. 2 should be in subscript.
(V) The authors should present the main findings in graphical form. It will increase the brevity and more readerships and attract more audience.
Author Response
Thank you so much for your comments. We provided as much as possible up to our knowledge the responses and highlighted in green in the text.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
