Land-Based Financing Elements in Infrastructure Policy Formulation: A Case of India
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript supposedly compares Indian central and state infrastructure policies/acts about incorporating land monetization strategies, and allegedly draws a framework for action (i.e., how the polices and legislation can incorporate the land-based financing elements). Having read this manuscript, I find it quite revealing on the policy side but with some concerns on the science side. My general feedback is below.
- Are the authors selling to the readers that the section on "Elements of land monetization in key legislations and policies" is the result/finding/outcome of this "research paper"? The paper reads well but it lacks the element of a "rigorous" and "replicable" study. I can't find the scientific link between that section and the frame. Could this be due to the structure and scope of the paper? Maybe. The authors have to sort this out. It is not enough to identify elements of land-based finance in policy documents (fact-finding exercise) and present it as a rigorous analysis. This has created core science issues...
- Core “Science” Issue - Difficult to grasp what type of paper this is, and so leads to problems of replicability: The authors consider this manuscript a research paper/article, but it has not been fully presented in that way – e.g., this should be a comparative policy analyses, but it is difficult to grasp what the key data used for investigation is, what data collection and analytical frame was employed, as well as the general methodological frame of the paper. The implication of these procedures not being clear is that other researchers cannot seriously replicate the procedure. This is a key weakness. Authors have to be clear on whether the manuscript is a communication paper, opinion peace or a research article or case study. In the current format, it reads more like a communication piece than a research paper. Putting these into perspective by restructuring the paper to reflect the above-mentioned elements will be crucial to producing a publishable manuscript. This is a major concern going forward as it affects the entire structure of the manuscript, but it is an issue the authors can easily address by introducing a well explained methodological section and a more policy-related discussion, especially on policy implications going forward in India (and maybe other countries).
- Based on the above concern, the result (and claims made in the conclusion) are not justified by any known process or method. Hence, cannot be said to be valid, even though the may be.
- It is great to have the authors dip into the cases from Hong Kong, Singapore, etc. However, the authors could also show broader awareness of efforts to introduce land-based finance instruments by organizations such as the Global Land Tool Network (GLTN) and RICS. This will allow for grasping the broader global efforts on the issue.
Author Response
Comment 1:
Are the authors selling to the readers that the section on "Elements of land monetization in key legislations and policies" is the result/finding/outcome of this "research paper"? The paper reads well but it lacks the element of a "rigorous" and "replicable" study. I can't find the scientific link between that section and the frame. Could this be due to the structure and scope of the paper? Maybe. The authors have to sort this out. It is not enough to identify elements of land-based finance in policy documents (fact-finding exercise) and present it as a rigorous analysis. This has created core science issues... Core “Science” Issue - Difficult to grasp what type of paper this is, and so leads to problems of replicability: The authors consider this manuscript a research paper/article, but it has not been fully presented in that way – e.g., this should be a comparative policy analyses, but it is difficult to grasp what the key data used for investigation is, what data collection and analytical frame was employed, as well as the general methodological frame of the paper. The implication of these procedures not being clear is that other researchers cannot seriously replicate the procedure. This is a key weakness. Authors have to be clear on whether the manuscript is a communication paper, opinion peace or a research article or case study. In the current format, it reads more like a communication piece than a research paper. Putting these into perspective by restructuring the paper to reflect the above-mentioned elements will be crucial to producing a publishable manuscript. This is a major concern going forward as it affects the entire structure of the manuscript, but it is an issue the authors can easily address by introducing a well explained methodological section and a more policy-related discussion, especially on policy implications going forward in India (and maybe other countries).
Response
Thank you for providing comments on the structure. This section, in the earlier version, presented the factual details of various land based financing elements. We have substantially revised the structure of the article, which now includes an introduction, method, illustrative project experiences as a prelude to evaluation of various policies, elements of policies that mention land based financing, comparison of policies, implications for policy development for incorporating land based financing elements and the summary/ conclusions. We think this has substantially benefited the clarity and rigor of the article.
Comment 2:
Based on the above concern, the result (and claims made in the conclusion) are not justified by any known process or method. Hence, cannot be said to be valid, even though the may be.
Response
The results are now linked to the comparison of policies against a framework. We hope this meets the requirements of the reviewers.
Comment 3:
It is great to have the authors dip into the cases from Hong Kong, Singapore, etc. However, the authors could also show broader awareness of efforts to introduce land-based finance instruments by organizations such as the Global Land Tool Network (GLTN) and RICS. This will allow for grasping the broader global efforts on the issue.
Response
Thank you for the suggestion. We have explicitly added the references to global organizations.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper addresses a vital issue in managing land in the public interest. It covers the case of India where a number of policy instruments have been applied over many years in different states, providing a rich foundation for review on which other Indian states and other countries can learn.
One notable omission is reference to the Global Land Tool Network publication 'Leveraging Land: Land Based finance for local government: A Reader and the companion volume: Trainers Guide.
I was also disappointed not to see any mention of the land pooling proposal for the proposed development of the Andra Pradesh state capital at Amaravati which would have been the world's largest example to date.
The main issue that needs addressing is the English. There are many cases throughout the text that need polishing and all abbreviated terms need an explanation. Apart from this, the paper is very interesting.
Author Response
Comments:
One notable omission is reference to the Global Land Tool Network publication 'Leveraging Land: Land Based finance for local government: A Reader and the companion volume: Trainers Guide.
Response:
We have updated the references including GLTN.
Comments:
I was also disappointed not to see any mention of the land pooling proposal for the proposed development of the Andra Pradesh state capital at Amaravati which would have been the world's largest example to date.
Response:
This is a very relevant example, and the same has been incorporated in the illustrative list of projects that used land based financing elements.
Comments:
The main issue that needs addressing is the English. There are many cases throughout the text that need polishing and all abbreviated terms need an explanation. Apart from this, the paper is very interesting.
Response:
We have reviewed and improved the language through the document. Please see the revised version.
Reviewer 3 Report
The article is interesting, but in this version it has the form of a description (report) of several projects carried out in India with reference to legal solutions. It lacks the emphasized methodological and scientific contribution. The article could be of this nature if the authors presented a clear thesis / research hypothesis. There is no reference to how to solve the problem of financing (co-financing) the construction of technical infrastructure facilities by governments of more developed countries than India, e.g. in European countries. There are many publications on this topic in the world literature.
Detailed comments
Much of the detailed information contained in Table 1 and Table 2 does not add new cognitive content for a reader outside of India. In addition, for better perception, I suggest you include a drawing (map) showing the location of ongoing infrastructure development projects.
Chapter 5 The authors are entitled Conclusion, but they focused more on summarizing considerations than on formulating general conclusions and recommendations resulting from the cited facts that could be of interest to a wider readership.
There is no complete bibliographic data in several references in the list at the end of the article
The Henry George in "Progress and Poverty" entry referenced in the article is not listed in the literature
Author Response
Comments:
The article is interesting, but in this version it has the form of a description (report) of several projects carried out in India with reference to legal solutions. It lacks the emphasized methodological and scientific contribution. The article could be of this nature if the authors presented a clear thesis / research hypothesis. There is no reference to how to solve the problem of financing (co-financing) the construction of technical infrastructure facilities by governments of more developed countries than India, e.g. in European countries. There are many publications on this topic in the world literature.
Response:
A methodological section has been added, and the article accordingly revised. We hope the revised version addresses your concerns.
Comments:
Much of the detailed information contained in Table 1 and Table 2 does not add new cognitive content for a reader outside of India. In addition, for better perception, I suggest you include a drawing (map) showing the location of ongoing infrastructure development projects.
Response:
The article is addressing whether land based financing elements have been incorporated in the relevant policies, and assessing whether the contents of the same are adequate to mainstream the adoption of value capture mechanisms. The illustrative list of projects are mentioned to provide a perspective to the reader on the divergent sectors, geographies and project structures. An attempt has been made to state that while the projects are being implemented, the policy aspects are lagging. As the purpose of the projects is only to demonstrate the variety, and not present the exhaustiveness of the spectrum (for instance Government of India list more than 1820 projects under the PPP portfolio), we think that the diagram of the project locations is not very appropriate in this article.
Comments:
Chapter 5 The authors are entitled Conclusion, but they focused more on summarizing considerations than on formulating general conclusions and recommendations resulting from the cited facts that could be of interest to a wider readership.
Response:
Thank you for the suggestion. We have improved the section to include recommendations.
Comments:
There is no complete bibliographic data in several references in the list at the end of the article
Response:
Thank you. We have checked the references and updated the details.
Comments:
The Henry George in "Progress and Poverty" entry referenced in the article is not listed in the literature
Response:
We have added the entry to the list of references.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have put in good effort at improving this manuscript. I only have some minor issues that they could address prior to publication.
The authors have done enough to implement the key aspects of my recommendations from previous version. I consider the manuscript ready for publication pending only this very minor issues.
Abstract: Please make the abstract more direct. The fourth sentence should have started with, "This" paper, instead of "the paper." This is because the authors had not mentioned the paper prior to that sentence.
Section 4: Instead of the heading "Elements of land monetization in key legislations and policies" it should rather be "Elements of land monetization in key legislations and policies in India" to stay consistent with the context of findings so that readers are not tempted to assume it is on general context.
Table 4: The column on "Governance" could be re-captioned "Governance actors." This is because, as the authors rightly know, government and Government is not the same, yet government is part of governance. Hence, in the context that column is presented, the arms of government (state government) and the ULB represent governance stakeholders/actors. The authors should reflect this by re-captioning the table and maybe reflect this awareness somewhere in the description of the table.
Author Response
Please see the responses below to the changes suggested.
Abstract: Please make the abstract more direct. The fourth sentence should have started with, "This" paper, instead of "the paper." This is because the authors had not mentioned the paper prior to that sentence.
The word “The” has been modified to “This”
Section 4: Instead of the heading "Elements of land monetization in key legislations and policies" it should rather be "Elements of land monetization in key legislations and policies in India" to stay consistent with the context of findings so that readers are not tempted to assume it is on general context.
The heading of the section has been changed to include “In India”
Table 4: The column on "Governance" could be re-captioned "Governance actors." This is because, as the authors rightly know, government and Government is not the same, yet government is part of governance. Hence, in the context that column is presented, the arms of government (state government) and the ULB represent governance stakeholders/actors. The authors should reflect this by re-captioning the table and maybe reflect this awareness somewhere in the description of the table.
This change has been made in Table 1 and Table 4.
