The Effectiveness of Redistribution in Carbon Inequality: What About the Top 1%?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The main question addressed in your paper consists of examining the relationship between income inequality and environmental outcomes by focusing specifically on the effects of income redistribution policies on carbon emissions using.

Your work is relevant to the field as you used the data from 154 countries during 1995-2023.

Giving the fact that you have enough data, one of my recommendation is to split the sample in 2 or 3 sub-samples in order to better understand and compare your results. I’ve seen that this is one limitation of the study, but it is a limitation that can be solved.

Regarding the literature review, this section should be focused mainly on the relationship between income inequality and carbon emissions and on the relationship between redistribution and carbon emissions. (2.3 and 2.4 from your research). The theoretical background and the theoretical framework for Environmental Kuznets Curve (2.1 and 2.2 from your research) should be shortened or dropped.

Regarding the methodology, it is clearly written and understandable. Plus, it is correctly applied.

The Discussion section is very short. You should develop this section and you need to emphasise what is new comparing with other studies, or what is the gap from the literature that you cover or what are the strengths of your research.

In terms of figures, you should add the unit of measure for figures 3 and 4.

Success!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

We sincerely thank Reviewer 1 for the valuable comments and constructive feedback. We carefully considered each point raised and revised the manuscript accordingly. Below, we provide point-by-point responses to each of your suggestions, highlighting the corresponding revisions made in the manuscript.

Comment 1

“One of my recommendations is to split the sample in 2 or 3 sub-samples in order to better understand and compare your results. I’ve seen that this is one limitation of the study, but it is a limitation that can be solved.”

Response:
We appreciate this important and insightful suggestion. In the revised version of the paper, we conducted a sub-sample analysis by dividing countries into developed and developing groups, based on the World Bank’s 2024–2025 income classification. Separate System GMM estimations were performed for each group. The results are presented in Table 3 and discussed in detail in both the Findings and Discussion sections.

Please note that the inclusion of this new table has shifted the numbering of subsequent tables throughout the manuscript.

These subgroup estimations reveal that the negative effect of income redistribution on per capita carbon emissions is statistically significant only in developed countries, which we now highlight as one of the key contextual contributions of the study.  We would like to sincerely thank you for this thoughtful recommendation, which directly led us to this critical empirical finding.

Comment 2

“The theoretical background and the theoretical framework for Environmental Kuznets Curve (2.1 and 2.2 from your research) should be shortened or dropped.”

Response:
Thank you for this critical observation. We have redesigned the sections that will focus on the on the relationship between income inequality and carbon emissions. As you have indicated section 2.1 and 2.2 shortened.

Comment 3

“The literature review should be focused mainly on the relationship between income inequality and carbon emissions and on the relationship between redistribution and carbon emissions. (2.3 and 2.4 from your research).”

Response:
Thank you for this helpful recommendation. In response, Section 2.3 was revised to offer a clearer and more structured summary of studies linking income inequality to carbon emissions, including a discussion of methodological and contextual differences across findings. As for Section 2.4, the literature on redistribution and emissions is more limited, but we retained the key contributions available in this area to ensure completeness. Given the constraints in the empirical literature, we believe this section remains focused and sufficient.

Comment 4

“The methodology is clearly written and understandable. Plus, it is correctly applied.”

Response:
Thank you for your positive assessment. We are pleased that the methodology section was found to be clear and appropriately applied. In the revised version, we maintained the original estimation strategy and additionally incorporated methodological clarifications related to the newly added sub-sample analyses. These additions enhance the contextual depth of the study and clarify the structure and scope of the subgroup estimations within the methodology section.

Comment 5

“The Discussion section is very short. You should develop this section and you need to emphasise what is new comparing with other studies, or what is the gap from the literature that you cover or what are the strengths of your research.”

Response:
Thank you for this insightful recommendation. In the revised version, we significantly expanded the Discussion section. We have added some sentences to clarify, explain and deepen the significance of the topic.

Comment 6

“You should add the unit of measure for figures 3 and 4.”

Response:
Thank you for noting this detail. We have revised the figure titles for both Figure 3 and Figure 4 to include the unit of measurement: “(Tonnes per Person)”. This ensures clarity and consistency with academic conventions.

Please let us know if any further clarification or revision is needed. We thank you again for your time and for helping improve the quality of our manuscript.

Sincerely,
Gökhan ÜNALAN (on behalf of the authors)

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The presented study addresses the significant issue of evaluating the impact of income inequality on carbon emissions.

A notable feature of the presented study is the application of the S. Kuznets cycle to analyze the nature of this impact. The article thoroughly details the author's methodology and substantiates the significance of the results obtained.

However, it is recommended to clarify the aim of the study that stated in the Introduction. The author notes: "This study aims to contribute to the literature examining the relationship between income inequality and environmental outcomes by focusing specifically on the effects of income redistribution policies on carbon emissions."

It appears that the aim is not the author's contribution to the literature, but rather as an assessment of the impact of income inequality on environmental outcomes and substantiate the contribution of income redistribution policies to carbon emissions.

The article is recommended for publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

We sincerely thank you for your thoughtful and encouraging feedback on our manuscript. We greatly appreciate your recognition of the application of the S. Kuznets cycle as a notable feature of the study, used to analyze the relationship between income inequality and environmental outcomes. We believe this approach constitutes one of the study’s key contributions to the literature, as it allows for a more systematic examination of how redistribution policies affect different income groups.

We are also grateful for your careful observation regarding the articulation of the study’s aim. In response, we have revised the relevant sentence in the Introduction section to reflect the true focus of the study more clearly. The previous version primarily emphasized contributing to the literature, whereas the revised version now clearly states that the main objective is to evaluate the impact of income inequality on environmental outcomes and to examine the role of income redistribution policies in shaping carbon emissions.

The revised sentence now reads:

“This study aims to assess the impact of income inequality on environmental outcomes, with a particular focus on how income redistribution policies influence carbon emissions. In doing so, it also contributes to the growing literature on inequality and climate change.”

We hope this revision adequately addresses your comment and improves the clarity of our research objective. Once again, thank you for your valuable suggestions and for recommending the manuscript for publication.

Sincerely,
Gökhan ÜNALAN (on behalf of the authors)

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. In the introduction section, when elaborating the research questions, the differences and innovations between this study and the existing literature, such as the focus on carbon emissions of specific income groups and the new perspectives of policy implications, can be more emphasized to highlight the importance of this study.
2. The findings of different studies on the relationship between income inequality and carbon emissions can be classified and summarized in a more systematic way to analyze the possible reasons for the differences in the results, such as the research methodology, sample differences, and so on.
3. It is recommended to add more information on the basis and rationale for the selection of variables, explaining why these particular variables were chosen to measure concepts such as carbon emissions, income inequality and income redistribution, and the common use and rationality of these variables in theoretical and empirical studies.
4. In response to the problem of missing data on carbon emissions after 2020, some data interpolation or other methods can be considered to minimize the impact of missing data on the research results, and the treatment adopted and its reasonableness can be explained in the text.
5. The specific reasons and advantages of choosing the System GMM approach over other approaches (e.g., fixed-effects model, random-effects model, etc.) can be further elaborated, especially the unique role and contribution in dealing with the research problem of this paper.
6. More control variables can be considered to be introduced into the model, such as energy structure, industrial structure, etc., in order to control the factors that may affect carbon emissions more comprehensively and improve the explanatory power and accuracy of the model.
7. Some analysis and discussion of the long-term results can be added to the results section. Although the text mentions that the long-term results are not significant, the possible reasons and implications for future research can be further explored.
8. The differences in the policy implications of the study for different types of countries or regions could be further emphasized, such as the different focuses and challenges of income redistribution policies and carbon reduction targets in developed and developing countries.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

Please see the attachment. It contains our detailed response letter to your comments. We have addressed each point carefully and revised the manuscript accordingly. We sincerely appreciate your thorough and insightful feedback, which has been invaluable in improving the quality and clarity of our work.

Kind regards,
Gökhan ÜNALAN
On behalf of all co-authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Your results and therefore, your discussion section, considerably improved as you split the countries in subsamples. The theoretical part is much smoother and more clearly presented. 

From my point of view, all my recommendations are implemented. 

Succes!