Elasticities of Food Import Demand in Arab Countries: Implications for Food Security and Policy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript calculates income and price elasticities of demand for imported Arab food, but globally there are too many similar studies and the authors need to focus on highlighting innovations. In addition, I have three revisions: 
1. The authors emphasize that this paper is the "first analysis of food import demand patterns by income class in Arab countries", but the literature review mentions that Abdullah & Mohammed (2023) have conducted a time-phased study on Iraq and Gani (2021) analyzed livestock imports in the Gulf countries. It is recommended to state the innovations more rigorously (e.g., the first region-wide multi-category panel analysis across 60 years) and to add differentiated comparisons with established studies.
2. used static AIDS models to analyze very long panel data from 1961-2020, but did not discuss the impact of structural changes (e.g., oil crises, regional wars) on parameter stability. It is recommended to add robustness tests (e.g., time-period estimation) or explain the rationale (e.g., data limitations) for choosing a static model over a dynamic model to enhance the reliability of the conclusions.
3. Unit price (expenditure/quantity) as a proxy variable for import prices may be subject to measurement error: quality differences and inflation adjustments (in nominal dollar terms) are not taken into account; and fluctuations in high-priced categories (e.g., dairy products) may be affected by high-value-added processed goods. It is recommended to supplement the sensitivity analysis (e.g. by excluding outlier years) or to clarify the potential impact of this limitation on the elasticity estimates.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Report on the Manuscript ID: sustainability-3700905
"Elasticities of Food Import Demand in Arab Countries: Implications for Food Security and Policy"

    The manuscript presents a comprehensive and timely study on food import demand across Arab countries, focusing on income and price elasticities using the Almost Ideal Demand System (AIDS) model. The authors use extensive data (1961- 2020) and effectively categorize countries by income levels to analyze consumption behavior across five major food groups. The work is valuable for policymakers interested in enhancing food security and offers insights into import dependencies, particularly amid global economic shocks.
    However, the paper requires a comprehensive review in terms of structure and clarity. Below are some detailed comments and suggestions for improvement.

1. Why did the authors not include short-run elasticities in their analysis, and how might incorporating a dynamic model (e.g., ECM or dynamic AIDS) affect your findings?
2. What justifications can the authors offer for choosing the fixed AIDS model over alternative demand systems?
3 . How can the authors' policy recommendations be more specifically aligned with the elasticity results across different income groups in the Arab region?
4. Have the authors considered the impact of major trade agreements or structural breaks during the study period?
5 . The authors must elaborate on the limitations of using unit prices as proxies for import prices.
6. Why did the authors choose the current product groupings, and could further disaggregation of categories (e.g., separating cereals from legumes in staples) reveal more nuanced insights?
7. How have the authors addressed potential endogeneity between income and import demand in their model, and did they consider using instrumental variables or alternative estimation techniques?
8. The authors must enhance the conclusion by quantifying the expected impact of specific policy actions (e.g., subsidies or tariffs) using the estimated elasticities.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for addressing an important topic with a clear methodology. Below are some points to consider to strengthen the paper:

1. Core Methodology
• The static AIDS framework is correctly implemented, but its application is well-trodden. To enhance novelty, consider adding a dynamic extension (e.g. error-correction) or comparing with alternative demand systems (e.g. Rotterdam, Quadratic AIDS).
2. Broader Innovation Areas
• While the focus on food import elasticities is valid, incorporating other innovative dimensions—such as an analysis of regional water scarcity and its impact on food production—would deepen the paper’s contribution to food-security assessment. Examining water‐food‐energy nexus constraints could reveal critical policy insights that extend beyond income stratification.
3. Data Scope and Relevance
• Updating the dataset to include 2021–2024 (to capture COVID-19 aftermath and the Ukraine war) or discussing these shocks would improve timeliness.
• Disaggregating food categories (e.g. cereals vs. pulses) or justifying the current grouping more thoroughly would clarify whether aggregation masks key heterogeneities.
4. Policy and Practical Implications
• Scenario-based simulations (e.g. a 10% import tariff shock) would make policy recommendations more actionable.
• Linking elasticity findings explicitly to SDG 2 targets—such as caloric availability or affordability thresholds—would ground the discussion in concrete food-security goals.

Overall, these additions would broaden the paper’s innovation and policy relevance while retaining its solid analytical foundation.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript is now acceptable for publication.

Author Response

The authors appreciate your comments and suggestions, which have enhanced the quality of the study.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made convincing improvements to the paper and responded to comments in a good way.

Author Response

The authors appreciate your comments and suggestions, which have enhanced the quality of the study.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the extensive revisions and for providing a detailed point-by-point response.
The new version is substantially clearer, the motivation is better articulated, and the additional robustness checks and policy discussion markedly strengthen the manuscript. The study now offers a more convincing contribution to the literature on food-import demand and food security in Arab countries.

Below are a few remaining comments that, once addressed, should further improve the paper and help readers grasp its policy relevance at first glance.

Specific comments and suggestions

• Clarify the static AIDS choice
  You now acknowledge that a dynamic specification could capture short-run adjustments; please add one or two sentences (perhaps in Section 4.5) spelling out why the static long-run focus is most appropriate for the policy questions you pose, and explicitly flag any potential bias this might introduce.

• Water–food–energy nexus
  The new paragraph in the conclusion is welcome, but consider inserting a brief forward-looking statement in the introduction as well, signalling to readers early on that environmental constraints are recognised even though they remain outside the current empirical scope.

• Scenario quantification
  The tariff-shock example is helpful. It would be even more useful to present the calculated percentage change in import expenditure (not only volume) for at least one representative income group. A two-line footnote or short table would suffice.

• Category aggregation
  While data limitations are clear, please show (in an appendix) the share of cereals vs. pulses within the “staples” bundle for the latest available year. This will reassure readers that the aggregate behaviour of staples is not driven by one sub-component.

• Writing and presentation

  • A light language edit is still advisable (e.g., “elasticities after 2020 are difficult” → “elasticities beyond 2020 are difficult”).

  • Check figure numbering: Figures 4 and 5 are referenced in the text before Figure 3 appears.

  • Consider shortening Section 2 by moving organisation descriptions (LAS, OAPEC, GCC) to an online appendix; this will keep the narrative tighter.

• SDG 2 link
  You refer to SDG 2 in several places; turning one of those references into a concise bullet list of how each main finding maps onto SDG 2 targets (availability, access, stability, utilisation) would make the policy section more actionable for non-economist readers.

Final recommendation

Minor Revision

The paper is now very close to being publishable. The issues above are mainly clarifications and presentation tweaks; addressing them should not require new empirical work. I look forward to seeing the final version.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf