Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The text is well written and well structured. I would only improve the introduction by better explaining the research questions and the conclusion by revisiting the theory and implementing it with data. This is to better implement the conclusions and make them clearer.

Author Response

Comment 1 [Reviewer 1]: The text is well written and well structured. I would only improve the introduction by better explaining the research questions and the conclusion by revisiting the theory and implementing it with data. This is to better implement the conclusions and make them clearer.

Response 1: Thank you for your comment. We have reviewed the introduction by better explaining the research questions. You can see the amendments highlighted in yellow. We have revisited the theory and we have added some more information regarding our methodology. However, this is not an empirical where new quantitative or qualitative data was produced. We hope that this became clearer in the text now.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper examines sources of and potential solutions to labor and skill shortages in EU countries.  The paper focuses to some degree on one small nation, the identity of which is masked as “C1.”  The evidence provided in the paper is largely from existing scholarship and policy reports. No original data analysis or qualitative evidence is provided. Barriers to employment that are examined include visa and work-authorization costs (borne by the firm), challenges in the recognition of credentials earned in other countries, housing shortages, language barriers, and potential competition from AI.

While the issue examined here is an important one, I do not feel that this paper in its current form makes an original contribution to our understanding of the issue.  As noted above, there is no original evidence developed or analyzed.  In addition, the examination of barriers to immigrant recruitment and employment, based on a review of existing papers, is fairly superficial. 

To make the paper more compelling and informative, I would suggest

(1) providing detail about the country (“C1”) being examined. It is unclear to me why the identify of the country is masked (it seems that it may be Luxembourg, based on the legend in the graph on page 3, but maybe I’m wrong).  This presentation makes it difficult to engage with the specific circumstances of the nation being examined, which might inform our understanding of the problem and also help us reflect on whether the circumstances of this nation are in any sense typical or generalizable.  For example, we are told that this is a small nation but that it has the highest GDP in the European Union (line 58 – I assume that should say “GDP per capita,” though).  What do those particular circumstances suggest about whether the challenges faced by this nation are “typical”?  In addition, the graph noted above indicates that nearly half of the labor force are cross-border EU workers.  Is that unusual? What are the implications for the demand for immigrant labor?  Being able to consider more context would  improve our understanding of these issues.

(2) relatedly, providing more quantitative detail.  The challenge of coincident skill shortages and high unemployment is asserted. It would be easier to think about this challenge if we had a time series on job vacancies and unemployment, for example.

(3) focusing more clearly on the experience of small and medium enterprises. This appears to be the focus of the paper, but the particular conditions faced by such firms are not developed in detail. Are there specific cases that might be informative?

(4) either dropping or greatly expanding the consideration of AI as a substitute for certain kinds of labor.  The couple of paragraphs we are given on this topic do not contribute much to our understanding.

In addition, the paper needs substantial editing for English grammar.

Author Response

Comment 1: This paper examines sources of and potential solutions to labor and skill shortages in EU countries.  The paper focuses to some degree on one small nation, the identity of which is masked as “C1.”  The evidence provided in the paper is largely from existing scholarship and policy reports. No original data analysis or qualitative evidence is provided. Barriers to employment that are examined include visa and work-authorization costs (borne by the firm), challenges in the recognition of credentials earned in other countries, housing shortages, language barriers, and potential competition from AI. While the issue examined here is an important one, I do not feel that this paper in its current form makes an original contribution to our understanding of the issue.  As noted above, there is no original evidence developed or analyzed.  In addition, the examination of barriers to immigrant recruitment and employment, based on a review of existing papers, is fairly superficial. 

Response 1: We have no longer anonymized the case study. By explaining that the case study is “Luxembourg”, we now also added a longer paragraph where we go in-depth regarding the specificities of Luxembourg and its labour market situation. We have also added additional information and an additional graph to explain better the labour market situation of Luxembourg. We have added some more information regarding our methodology. However, this is not an empirical article where new quantitative or qualitative data was produced. We hope that this became clearer in the text now. We tend to disagree that there is nothing new as much of the current information on this subject for Luxembourg is relatively new and the analysis of the legislation and the hiring circumstances is not superficial. All these changes are highlighted in yellow through the document.

Comment 2: To make the paper more compelling and informative, I would suggest
(1) providing detail about the country (“C1”) being examined. It is unclear to me why the identify of the country is masked (it seems that it may be Luxembourg, based on the legend in the graph on page 3, but maybe I’m wrong).  This presentation makes it difficult to engage with the specific circumstances of the nation being examined, which might inform our understanding of the problem and also help us reflect on whether the circumstances of this nation are in any sense typical or generalizable.  For example, we are told that this is a small nation but that it has the highest GDP in the European Union (line 58 – I assume that should say “GDP per capita,” though).  What do those particular circumstances suggest about whether the challenges faced by this nation are “typical”?  In addition, the graph noted above indicates that nearly half of the labor force are cross-border EU workers.  Is that unusual? What are the implications for the demand for immigrant labor?  Being able to consider more context would  improve our understanding of these issues.

Response 2: As there are several issues in the first comment, we proceed to analyse it one by one:

a) We have no longer anonymized the case study. By explaining that the case study is “Luxembourg”, we now also added a longer paragraph where we go in-depth regarding the specificities of Luxembourg and its labour market situation. We have also added additional information and an additional graph to explain better the labour market situation of Luxembourg. This is highlighted in the introduction and in the case study.

b) GDP per capita was corrected.

c) As requested we proceed to provide more information, which clarify that this is a very particular labour market inside the European Union, making Luxembourg the larger cross-border region in the EU which is quite unusual and had made that the demand form immigrant labour has not been relevant until the last few year what was in detail explain now. 

Comment 3: (2) relatedly, providing more quantitative detail.  The challenge of coincident skill shortages and high unemployment is asserted. It would be easier to think about this challenge if we had a time series on job vacancies and unemployment, for example.

Response 3: Thank you for your comment. Indeed, we accepted your recommendation and introduced a figure with the information available between 2020 - 2025 through a time series showing the unemployment and the job vacancies. Regarding the labour shortages there is no information available, but we explained the methodology used by the government to determine the labour shortages in economic sectors.

Comment 4: (3) focusing more clearly on the experience of small and medium enterprises. This appears to be the focus of the paper, but the particular conditions faced by such firms are not developed in detail. Are there specific cases that might be informative?

Response 4: We have revised a sentence that might have been misleading. So hopefully now it is clearer that we don’t focus on SMEs.

Comment 5: (4) either dropping or greatly expanding the consideration of AI as a substitute for certain kinds of labor.  The couple of paragraphs we are given on this topic do not contribute much to our understanding.

Response: 5: Thank you for your comment. We have added several paragraphs on AI and the risks for the labour market .

Comment 6: In addition, the paper needs substantial editing for English grammar.

Response 6: A proper proofread was done on the document.

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study provides a timely examination of access to the labor market for third country nationals in the European Union context with C1 as the main point of study. The study highlights the factors that influence access to the labor market such as skill transferability and language ability, which can ultimately lead to job mismatch in the European context. Despite its contribution to the literature, there are a few issues that need to be addressed to strengthen the manuscript.

It is difficult to understand how this manuscript contributes to the existing literature. While the authors raise important points regarding challenges faced by third country nationals in the labor market, there is little or no connection to how these issues specifically relate to C1. Many of the challenges are already well known to scholars of migration and labor markets. What remains unclear is how the case of C1 is unique. This is the key missing element. Although the authors present valid arguments about the difficulties experienced by third country nationals, a strong connection to their experiences within the C1 labor market is lacking. Why are their experiences important for understanding labor market dynamics in C1? What makes this case distinctive enough to be the focus of the study? These questions remain unanswered throughout the manuscript.

Additionally, it is important to provide background or an explanation of C1 as a country in Europe. Why is it relevant, what does it mean, and how is it used? Some readers may not be familiar with the European context. Including this information will enable readers and scholars to understand specific terms used throughout the paper without having to consult external sources. This is especially important since outside of the European context C1 is not widely discussed. A similar issue arises with the term third country nationals. Additionally, the inclusion of the demand of COVID-19 in the abstract is misleading because it suggests that the authors discuss its influence on labor market shortages in the main body of the article, yet it is not addressed in the title or the manuscript itself.

C1 is defined and explained in the last paragraph of the introduction. It may be beneficial to justify its relevance earlier to provide a clearer foundation for the study. Furthermore, new concepts appear in the manuscript, such as AI and its influence on the labor market, which are introduced abruptly in the last paragraph of the introduction. Overall, there is a structural issue that needs to be revisited to ensure that key points are introduced and developed in a clear and coherent manner. New terms, graphs, and topics require proper explanation. For instance, how does Table 1 relate to the arguments presented? Why are shortages in these occupations important for understanding the need to consider third country nationals in the C1 labor market?

The methodology and materials section should also be expanded. How were documents analyzed? Was there a specific methodology used to justify the inclusion or exclusion of materials in this study?

In the discussion section, the authors introduce other factors such as the natality deficit and its influence on the labor market, but these issues are not discussed earlier in the manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The authors need to proofread their manuscript due to the presence of grammatical errors. 

Author Response

Comment 1: It is difficult to understand how this manuscript contributes to the existing literature. While the authors raise important points regarding challenges faced by third country nationals in the labor market, there is little or no connection to how these issues specifically relate to C1. Many of the challenges are already well known to scholars of migration and labor markets. What remains unclear is how the case of C1 is unique. This is the key missing element. Although the authors present valid arguments about the difficulties experienced by third country nationals, a strong connection to their experiences within the C1 labor market is lacking. Why are their experiences important for understanding labor market dynamics in C1? What makes this case distinctive enough to be the focus of the study? These questions remain unanswered throughout the manuscript.

Response 1: We have no longer anonymized the case study. By explaining that the case study is “Luxembourg”, we now also added a longer paragraph where we go in-depth regarding the specificities of Luxembourg and its labour market situation. We have also added additional information and an additional graph to explain better the labour market situation of Luxembourg. Also, the case of Luxembourg is quite particular as until now the country has depended substantially in the neighboring countries to satisfy its labour demands. However, during the last several years this dynamic has changed as the Greater Region workforce has begun to stagnate making the appeal for foreign workers more attractive. The situation of Luxembourg is unique in Europe not only because it is a tertiary economy but because it is a land lock country.

Comment 2:  Additionally, it is important to provide background or an explanation of C1 as a country in Europe. Why is it relevant, what does it mean, and how is it used? Some readers may not be familiar with the European context. Including this information will enable readers and scholars to understand specific terms used throughout the paper without having to consult external sources. This is especially important since outside of the European context C1 is not widely discussed.

Response 2: As mentioned above a clear context of Luxembourg has been added for better understanding.

Comment 3: A similar issue arises with the term third country nationals.

Response 3: Thank you for the comment. A definition of third country national has been provided.

Comment 4: Additionally, the inclusion of the demand of COVID-19 in the abstract is misleading because it suggests that the authors discuss its influence on labor market shortages in the main body of the article, yet it is not addressed in the title or the manuscript itself.

Response 4: Thank you for your comment. To avoid any confusion we decide to eliminate the reference to COVID-19 as it does not have any relevance in the context of the article.

Comment 5: C1 is defined and explained in the last paragraph of the introduction. It may be beneficial to justify its relevance earlier to provide a clearer foundation for the study.

Response 5: As explained in responses 1 and 2 a more detailed context of Luxembourg has been introduced.

Comment 6: Furthermore, new concepts appear in the manuscript, such as AI and its influence on the labor market, which are introduced abruptly in the last paragraph of the introduction.

Response 6: Artificial intelligence was better developed in the introduction and then later develop in the context of the document.

Comment 7: Overall, there is a structural issue that needs to be revisited to ensure that key points are introduced and developed in a clear and coherent manner.

Response 7: Thank you for your comment. This issue has been addressed in the new version by better developing the introduction and then making the relation to the text.

Comment 8: New terms, graphs, and topics require proper explanation. For instance, how does Table 1 relate to the arguments presented? Why are shortages in these occupations important for understanding the need to consider third country nationals in the C1 labor market?

Response 8: Thank you for the comment. We have made an explanation regarding table 1 explaining in detail the methodology on how the Luxembourgish government calculate the labour shortages in economic sectors.

Comment 9: The methodology and materials section should also be expanded. How were documents analyzed? Was there a specific methodology used to justify the inclusion or exclusion of materials in this study?

Response 9: We have added some more information regarding our methodology. However, this is not an empirical article where new quantitative or qualitative data was produced. We hope that this became clearer in the text now.

Comment 10: In the discussion section, the authors introduce other factors such as the natality deficit and its influence on the labor market, but these issues are not discussed earlier in the manuscript.

Response 10: Thank you for the comment. We have addressed the natality problem of Luxembourg in the introduction for better clarity.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

By explicitly dealing with the specifics of the labor market in Luxembourg, the authors have substantially increased the value of the paper. They have also provided a more compelling discussion of the relevance of AI to their analysis, and the clarity of the language is much improved. One additional suggestion with regard to discussion might be to revisit, in a few sentences or a paragraph in the conclusion, the issue of how Luxembourg differs from other EU economies and what the implications are for the issues they discuss. Are skill mismatch and credential recognition issues less severe in countries with greater occupational diversity?  Does the profound importance of foreign born labor make these questions more compelling in Luxembourg?  These issues come up briefly in the body of the paper, but it would be good to summarize and highlight them again in the conclusion, as a consideration of whether and how the discussion here is generalizable beyond Luxembourg.

Author Response

Comment 1: One additional suggestion with regard to discussion might be to revisit, in a few sentences or a paragraph in the conclusion, the issue of how Luxembourg differs from other EU economies and what the implications are for the issues they discuss. Are skill mismatch and credential recognition issues less severe in countries with greater occupational diversity?  Does the profound importance of foreign born labor make these questions more compelling in Luxembourg?  These issues come up briefly in the body of the paper, but it would be good to summarize and highlight them again in the conclusion, as a consideration of whether and how the discussion here is generalizable beyond Luxembourg.

Response 1: Thank you for the suggestion. We have included three new paragraphs in the conclusion that summarized these elements. to make this clearer.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made the necessary revisions to move forward with publication. They have provided clearer justification for the country of study and have effectively articulated why its labor market dynamics, particularly in relation to third‑country nationals and the growing need to diversify labor supply, are important to examine.

The only remaining suggestion is to rephrase the statement, “‘Skill’ is a buzzword with a fuzzy definition.” Replacing buzzword” and “fuzzy” with a more academically precise term (such as ambiguous, imprecise, or contested) would strengthen the tone.

Author Response

Comment 1: The only remaining suggestion is to rephrase the statement, “‘Skill’ is a buzzword with a fuzzy definition.” Replacing buzzword” and “fuzzy” with a more academically precise term (such as ambiguous, imprecise, or contested) would strengthen the tone.

Response 1: Thank you for your comment. We have replaced the word "buzzword" for "fashionable term" and "fuzzy" for the word "imprecise" in order to strengthen the tone.