Analysis of Monetary and Multidimensional Poverty Drivers Among Agricultural Households in Togo Using a Weighted Logit Framework

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a relevant results on poverty determinants in a rural Sub-Saharan context. I think that the topic is timely and contributes meaningfully to the literature on multidimensional and monetary poverty among agricultural households. Overall, the paper is well-structured and clearly written, but in my opinion, there are several areas where it could be strengthened. The manuscript provides valuable empirical evidence, however, its structure and discussion could be further refined to ensure that the results are presented in a more coherent way. The following suggestions could help improve the quality of the manuscript.

1. Introduction - The introduction would benefit from a brief discussion on development disparities between farmers who have limited access to new technologies and those who use more traditional methods. Farmers with outdated techniques struggle not only to compete with large producers from other countries, but also with local farmers who use more modern approaches. This technological gap is one of the factors that helps explain the high levels of poverty in these communities.
2. Results: In lines 406-409, the manuscript mentions that larger household size increases poverty, calling it “a pattern widely observed in rural Africa.” If this is the case, it would be helpful to show some references from studies in rural Africa to back it up. Right now, it reads more like an assertion than an evidence-based statement. Similarly, in lines 411-415, the discussion about the “transformative role of education” could be strengthened by citing other studies.
3. Discussion Section: These chapters should focus more on directly on interpreting the obtained results rather than restating the literature. The literature helps contextualize the findings and demonstrate the study’s contribution but should be discussed in relation to the results. And vice versa.
4. The conclusion should be more robust, summarizing key findings in relation to the study objectives and emphasizing their policy implications. Currently, it restates results without clearly synthesizing how they address the research questions or hypotheses.
5. Overall Structure The manuscript would benefit from a clearer logical flow following the sequence: objectives (or hypotheses) - results - implications/ recommendations. This would improve readability and strengthen the coherence of the paper. I don’t think that the manuscript should be re-written because of it, but these elements may be highlighted better.
6. In my opinion the limitations of the study should be better addressed.

 

Author Response

 Please see attached.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is generally good and the manuscript is readable, but there are numerous minor grammatical issues, awkward phrasings, and instances where clarity could be improved.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While the paper presents a well-structured analysis combining monetary and multidimensional poverty measures, the conceptual innovation remains somewhat unclear. The authors should explicitly articulate how their “absolute poverty” construct advances existing literature beyond similar dual-measure studies in Sub-Saharan Africa.

The introduction effectively establishes the background and relevance of poverty studies in Togo, but it remains largely descriptive. It should explicitly state the main research questions or hypotheses guiding the study and indicate the analytical or methodological approaches used to address them.

The four theoretical perspectives (individualistic, cultural, geographical, structural) are presented comprehensively, yet their operational link to the empirical model is limited. Please clarify how specific variables in the logit model correspond to each theoretical strand and how this integration enhances explanatory depth.

Although the paper describes the weighted logit framework, further details are needed regarding treatment of multicollinearity, goodness-of-fit tests, and handling of missing data (e.g., 879 cases dropped). Providing these diagnostics will enhance confidence in the robustness of the results.

Some results (e.g., cooperative membership increasing poverty, shocks reducing monetary poverty) are intriguing but insufficiently explained. The discussion should probe possible mechanisms (e.g., reverse causality, measurement bias, or short-term coping responses) and reference relevant comparative studies.

The results section is very dense and occasionally repetitive with the discussion. Consider separating purely statistical findings from interpretative discussion, and use subheadings or summary tables to improve readability and analytical flow.

The conclusion identifies education and market access as priorities, but the discussion could more strongly connect these recommendations to specific SDG targets or national strategies in Togo. Suggest how policymakers or NGOs could operationalize these findings, and outline potential longitudinal or panel-data extensions.

Overall, this is a well-written and methodologically sound paper that addresses an important topic (poverty dynamics among agricultural households in Togo) using a combination of monetary and multidimensional poverty frameworks. The manuscript is clearly structured, empirically rigorous, and policy-relevant. With several targeted revisions, it has strong potential for publication in this journal.

Author Response

 

 Please see attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your continued efforts to improve the manuscript. The review process has resulted in an extremely thorough and comprehensive revision. The changes are substantial and address almost all of the concerns raised in the previous review.

I am very pleased with your response, which was excellent. The most important revisions have been fully incorporated:

• A complete restructuring with separate sections for the literature review and the theoretical framework;
• The addition of explicit hypotheses and a conceptual diagram;
• A formal definition of absolute poverty;
• An in-depth discussion of the counterintuitive findings (shocks, cooperatives);
• Explicit links to sustainability and the SDGs;
• An acknowledgement of methodological limitations.

The remaining gaps are minor (e.g., abstract format, figure labels, additional statistics in the tables, etc.) and, in my opinion, do not compromise the scientific quality of the manuscript. I therefore conclude that the work is ready for publication.

Author Response

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is evident that the author has made remarkable revisions and provided excellent responses based on my comments. By the way, the "1.1 Background" in the introduction section is clearly redundant, and it is hoped that the authors will rectify this inappropriate aspect before the article is published.

Author Response

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf