(In)Visible Nuances: Analytical Methods for a Relational Impact Assessment of Anti-Poverty Projects

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review Report

1. Summary

Dear Authors,

This is an interesting, coherent and easy to read article.

More specifically, this paper examines an empirical ‘relational impact assessment’ of a specific anti-poverty project in the North West 12 region of Argentina. The analysis of data - collected longitudinally through questionnaires - highlights 13 changes in the personal 'relational configurations' of the project's primary beneficiaries: small 14 entrepreneurs in the tourist area. In this way, the article offers an analytical method to evaluate the 15 'relational impact' of anti-poverty projects in quanti-qualitative terms. The strengths of this article are linked both to the view of poverty as a multidimensional phenomenon and to the use of SNA. 

2. General comments

I have only some comments:

• Section 1 should be expanded to include more considerations regarding multidimensional poverty and bibliography relevant to the subject of the article. In order to help you, take a look at the following Handbook:

Dirksen, J., Alkire, S. (2025). Multidimensional Poverty: Measurement, Analysis, Applications. In: Zimmermann, K.F. (eds) Handbook of Labor, Human Resources and Population Economics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57365-6_182-1

In addition, please take a look at the following articles:

Ogwang, T., Lamarche, JF. Hybrid measures of multidimensional poverty. Empir Econ 67, 1211–1233 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-024-02581-4

Ogwang T (2022) The regression approach to the measurement and decomposition of the multidimensional Watts poverty index. J Econ Ineq 20:951–973. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10888-022-09531-z   

• More specifically, regarding Section 1 , what other contemporary literature are there of multidimensional poverty? What other useful considerations of multidimensional poverty are there? The consideration of multidimensional poverty that you mention is not the only recent one. Another recent view of multidimensional poverty divides it into economic and non-economic poverty, while in non-economic poverty we find moral education. Moral education is the yeast of relational good and is of major interest to you in your work. In order to help you, take a look at the following article:

Leriou, E. (2024) Multidimensional child poverty in Greece: Empirical findings from the longitudinal implementation of a new multiple indicator during the period 2010-2023. ΚΕPΕ, Greek Economic Outlook, 54, 54-61. https://www.kepe.gr/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/3.3.pdf  

Moreover, in our days, multidimensional poverty considers as the opposite of well-being. In order to help you take a look at the following article (page 1970). 

Leriou, E. (2022). Understanding and measuring child well-being in the region of Attica, Greece: Round Four. Child Indicators Research, 15, 1967-2011. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-022-09957-x

In addition, as well-being is correlated with multidimensional poverty, moral education, which is the state of the art with regard to multidimensional poverty, is correlated with well-being and with indicators of well-being. Take a look at the below well-being indicator please, which includes moral education in the light of culture, leisure, arts, etc. So all of these are interconnected and should not be left out of your discussion in the introduction. More specifically, you should include all these in one or three opening paragraphs in the introduction. 

Michalos, A. C., Smale, B., Labonté, R., Muharjarine, N., Scott, K., Moore, K., Swystun, L., Holden, B., Bernardin, H., Dunning, B., Graham, P., Guhn, M., Gadermann, A.M., Zumbo, B.D., Morgan, A., Brooker, A.-S., & Hyman, I. (2011). The Canadian index of wellbeing: Technical report 1.0. Waterloo, ON: Canadian Index of Wellbeing and University of Waterloo.  

The above suggested bibliography will help you connect your topic through one or three general, opening paragraphs in the introduction to other recent considerations of multidimensional poverty.

• As you refer to multidimensional poverty, you should clarify if it concerns children, adults or the elderly. If you are referring to all age categories you should clarify it.

3. Constructive criticism

This is a strong coherent article. The paper is C. “ Reconsider after major revisions”.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for comments and suggestions.

I have carefully considered the advice concerning literature.

More references are included also in order to improve the theoretical background. And other revisions is now in attached revised version (in blue). 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study addresses a relevant topic, but several areas require further clarification and expansion to enhance its clarity and coherence. The following comments focus on strengthening the conceptual framework, refining methodological details, and improving the overall structure.

It's crucial to establish a clear connection between "small entrepreneurs in tourist areas" and their impact on the relational dynamics under examination. This should be highlighted in the abstract to clarify their role in the study and emphasize their inclusion in verifying the observed dataset.

Discuss briefly some of the "convergent and complementary elements" mentioned on line 57.

Further elaborate on the importance of recognizing and interpreting nuanced elements, which are often declared (in)visible. Discuss how our methodological framework provides clear guidelines for identifying and analyzing these elements, whether in their entirety or as relevant parts.

Examine the set of tools in SNA (Social Network Analysis) mentioned as a "solid body" (line 65) and its impact on expanding and developing our proposed methodological framework.

When discussing edge characteristics, particularly their strength (line 91), explore how this information expands the background of case studies during the pandemic and its impact on the strength of these edges.

If the relational perspective (lines 112-113) is central to this manuscript, expand on which relational connections are examined and how their nature influences the applicability of our methodological framework both locally (contextual) and globally (universal).

The concept of "reciprocity" in this research and its application within the methodological framework needs clearer focus. Discuss its implications on specific case studies.

Section 2.3, after outlining the theoretical framework, should include specific points relevant to case studies, methodological frameworks, and data interpretation. The brief mention of empirical application (lines 194-196) needs to delve deeper into the analytical proposals of previously examined facets.

Further discuss the selection criteria for choosing projects for empirical application of the methodological approach, specifically how the A.M.U. fits these criteria.

Introduce an additional section focused solely on discussing the selected case studies to highlight their impact and relevance to this research. This will enhance understanding of Section 3.2, which currently lacks sufficient depth for interpreting complex subject matter.

The impact of the pandemic period as a potential influencing factor for results is inadequately addressed. Debate its possible causation in the discussion section.

Clearly distinguish between "unconditionality" and "inconditionality."

Expand the discussion section significantly to refine the methodological framework based on dataset analysis. Discuss the framework's applicability in a global research context, providing guidelines to identify and address discrepancies arising from contextual circumstances in future case studies.

Author Response

Comment 1: The study addresses a relevant topic, but several areas require further clarification and expansion to enhance its clarity and coherence. The following comments focus on strengthening the conceptual framework, refining methodological details, and improving the overall structure.

Response 1: Thank you for comments and suggestions. Revised version is attached: in blue revisions. More references are included also in order to improve the theoretical background.

Comment 2: It's crucial to establish a clear connection between "small entrepreneurs in tourist areas" and their impact on the relational dynamics under examination. This should be highlighted in the abstract to clarify their role in the study and emphasize their inclusion in verifying the observed dataset.

Response 2: I clarified the role of small entrepreneurs in the abstract and in the methodological section: they represent the direct beneficiaries of the project and the focal nodes of an egocentric analysis and the relational effects analyzed concern the changes in their social network

Comment 3: Discuss briefly some of the "convergent and complementary elements" mentioned on line 57.

Response 3: A brief discussion is now in lines 62-75.

Comment 4: Further elaborate on the importance of recognizing and interpreting nuanced elements, which are often declared (in)visible. Discuss how our methodological framework provides clear guidelines for identifying and analyzing these elements, whether in their entirety or as relevant parts.

Response 4: An further elaboration of this aspect is in the discussion session.

Comment 5: Examine the set of tools in SNA (Social Network Analysis) mentioned as a "solid body" (line 65) and its impact on expanding and developing our proposed methodological framework.

Response 5: The set of SNA tools is presented in the session 2.1, where I added a sentence to highlight the connection with the proposed method. The use of this set of tools for the specific application is presented in the Session Analysis. And some element concerning the use of SNA to developing methodological framework is now in Discussion Session and in Conclusion.

Comment 6: When discussing edge characteristics, particularly their strength (line 91), explore how this information expands the background of case studies during the pandemic and its impact on the strength of these edges.

Response 6: I specified at the beginning of the presentation of the results (par. 3.2) that the purpose of the analysis is to present the use of the method and that the results themselves can be influenced by the ongoing pandemic situation. I then repeated this specification in some other points

Comment 7: If the relational perspective (lines 112-113) is central to this manuscript, expand on which relational connections are examined and how their nature influences the applicability of our methodological framework both locally (contextual) and globally (universal).

Response 7. I tried to better connect the relational perspective and the Paradigm of gift at the end of the session 2.1 , suggesting that in this type of perspective a circularity and reciprocal influence between the micro and macro levels, between social action and structure, is highlighted.

Comment 8: The concept of "reciprocity" in this research and its application within the methodological framework needs clearer focus. Discuss its implications on specific case studies.

Response 8: Now, the concept is better described in connection with theoretical perspective of gift and  at the end of section 2.3, the concept of reciprocity is described in operational way (in blue). I hope it is sufficient.

Comment 9: Section 2.3, after outlining the theoretical framework, should include specific points relevant to case studies, methodological frameworks, and data interpretation. The brief mention of empirical application (lines 194-196) needs to delve deeper into the analytical proposals of previously examined facets.

Response 9: At the end of section 2.3, the most relevant point, concerning the operationalization of relational goods, has been included, linking to the specific application (in blue). In the methodological section 3.1, after having presented the specific case, other methodological aspects are described: the research design, the tools used for data collection and analysis. Some analytical choice are better explained in the session regarding the results.

Comment 10. Further discuss the selection criteria for choosing projects for empirical application of the methodological approach, specifically how the A.M.U. fits these criteria.

Response 10. Now an explication of the choice to apply the methodological approach to A.M.U. projects is in lines: 250-253

Comment 11. Introduce an additional section focused solely on discussing the selected case studies to highlight their impact and relevance to this research. This will enhance understanding of Section 3.2, which currently lacks sufficient depth for interpreting complex subject matter.

Response 11. Now section 3.2 is more expended and presents and discusses other indicators described previously, not for each case, but for each communitarian group of enterpreneurs.

Comment 12. The impact of the pandemic period as a potential influencing factor for results is inadequately addressed. Debate its possible causation in the discussion section.

Response 12. Thanks! In the paragraph 3.2 and in the discussion section I have inserted a reference to this problem to show awareness of the influence of the pandemic without being able to delve into it due to the lack of data relating to other periods. Considering the methodological purpose of the article I hope it will be fine.

Comment 13. Clearly distinguish between "unconditionality" and "inconditionality."

Response 13. This is an typing error: the word is only unconditionality

Comment 14. Expand the discussion section significantly to refine the methodological framework based on dataset analysis. Discuss the framework's applicability in a global research context, providing guidelines to identify and address discrepancies arising from contextual circumstances in future case studies.

Response 14. Now the discussion section is expanded in order to propose the framework’s applicability in a global research context.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review Report 

1. Summary

Dear Authors,

You have followed the advice and your article has been significantly revised.

More specifically, this paper examines an empirical ‘relational impact assessment’ of a specific anti-poverty project in the North West 12 region of Argentina. The analysis of data - collected longitudinally through questionnaires - highlights 13 changes in the personal 'relational configurations' of the project's primary beneficiaries: small 14 entrepreneurs in the tourist area. In this way, the article offers an analytical method to evaluate the 15 'relational impact' of anti-poverty projects in quanti-qualitative terms. The strengths of this article are linked both to the view of poverty as a multidimensional phenomenon and to the use of SNA.  

2. General comments

Although your article has been significantly revised, there is still some room for improvement. Ιn this context, I have only some comments: 

• In Section 1, in the first sentence, reference 4 (Leriou, 2022) should be moved after “non-economic”. Please, take a look: As part of the scientific literature highlights, well-being definitions must divide its contributing factors into economic and non-economic (Leriou, 2022)……
• In section 1, at the end of the first sentence, the following references should be added: -   Michalos, A. C., Smale, B., Labonté, R., Muharjarine, N., Scott, K., Moore, K., Swystun, L., Holden, B., Bernardin, H., Dunning, B., Graham, P., Guhn, M., Gadermann, A.M., Zumbo, B.D., Morgan, A., Brooker, A.-S., & Hyman, I. (2011). The Canadian index of wellbeing: Technical report 1.0. Waterloo, ON: Canadian Index of Wellbeing and University of Waterloo.
• Leriou, E. (2023). Understanding and measuring child well-being in the region of Attica, Greece: Round Five. Child Indicators Research, 16, 1395–1451.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-023-10030-4
• In Section 1, in the second sentence, after “poverty” the following reference should be added: Leriou, E. (2024). Multidimensional child poverty in Greece: Empirical findings from the longitudinal implementation of a new multiple indicator during the period 2010–2023. Greek Economic Outlook (KEPE), Vol. 54, pp.60-68. https://www.kepe.gr/en/research/recent-publications/greek-economic-outlook/issue-no-54-june-2024/

In Section of References, reference 2 should be corrected as: Leriou, E. (2016). Analysis of the factors that determine social welfare by implementing an integrated decision-making framework (in Greek). Panteion University. https://doi.org/10.12681/eadd/39270.                        

3. Constructive criticism

This is a strong coherent article.  The paper is B. “published after corrections have been made”.

Author Response

Thanks for suggestions.

The suggested references have been introduced in Section 1 and the reference in the Reference Section has been corrected

Revised version of the manuscript attached (changes in blue or as a track-change)

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors are commended for implementing modifications that have improved the overall quality of the research. However, further refinements are needed to enhance the clarity and coherence of the text.

When discussing “direct beneficiaries” of the project, it is necessary to briefly outline the different groups that have benefited from the implemented project, as well as engage in debate on how these lessons may be utilized or interpreted in future research.

If the concept of “well-being” has been adopted as one of the key concepts (key outcomes) of this research, it is necessary to feature it more prominently throughout the text, reinforcing its importance in the overall interpretation of the obtained data. The same approach must be applied when introducing and showcasing various examined “nuances”.  

Decide on the nomenclature, either “quali-quantitative” or “quality-quantitative” and apply it consistently throughout the text.  

Add further explanation why the examined anti-poverty project was elected as the best example of the newly developed methodology (expand upon rationale presented in lines 242-245).

If SNA methodology is utilized as the base of this research, it would be interesting to introduce commentary on the specific relation and/or positional attributes, as well as other points of interest pertinent to the examination of case studies, e.g. their centrality, direction, intensity, frequency, duration. Moreover, explicitly comment on the changeability of these connections and their attributes: is it possible for connections and attributes to change over time, requiring an updated methodology, specifically if the goal is to uncover nuances in said changes.

Clarify which aspects of the case studies are considered “opening gifts” that initiate the cycle of gift exchange. Additionally, address whether this cycle is sustained beyond project implementation or if it has a natural cut-off point.

Engage in an additional round of proofreading, as some grammar and spelling errors remain in the manuscript, e.g. Table 4, 1 years and 6 month.

Author Response

Comment: When discussing “direct beneficiaries” of the project, it is necessary to briefly outline the different groups that have benefited from the implemented project, as well as engage in debate on how these lessons may be utilized or interpreted in future research.

Response: The small enterpreneurs are the only beneficiaries. Other people or groups in the territorial contexts where the project took place may have been indirectly benefited but they are not known (members of the entrepreneurs' families, customers, suppliers...) and were not involved in the survey.

The words direct and indirect are technical word in NGO language but here isn’t clear: the word “direct” was deleted from the Summary.

On the future use of the lesson learned, in the discussion session and in conclusion, the method itself, applied for the analysis of the specific case, is proposed as a result as a tool that can be used in other contexts. It’s in the conclusion.

Comment: If the concept of “well-being” has been adopted as one of the key concepts (key outcomes) of this research, it is necessary to feature it more prominently throughout the text, reinforcing its importance in the overall interpretation of the obtained data. The same approach must be applied when introducing and showcasing various examined “nuances”.  

Response: Thanks. This comment gives the opportunity to make it clearer in the article that the key concept is not well-being in general, but the relational dimension of well-being. The proposed method only observes the relational component of a multidimensional well-being.

Some words to clarify are added in the Section 1. and in Results Section, in Conclusion and elsewhere in the article (in blue).

Comment: Decide on the nomenclature, either “quali-quantitative” or “quality-quantitative” and apply it consistently throughout the text.  

Response: “Quali-quantitative” is now applied in the manuscript.

Comment: Add further explanation why the examined anti-poverty project was elected as the best example of the newly developed methodology (expand upon rationale presented in lines 242-245).

Response: Further explanation added in lines 243-248.

Comment: If the SNA methodology is used as the basis of this research, it would be interesting to introduce commentary on the specific positional relationships and/or attributes, as well as other points of interest relevant to the case study examination, e.g. their centrality, direction, intensity, frequency, duration. Also, comment explicitly on the modifiability of these connections and attributes: it is possible that connections and attributes change over time, requiring an updated methodology, particularly if the aim is to uncover the nuances of such changes.

Response: Due to the particular approach of the SNA adopted - egocentric or personal, as clarified in lines  275, 278 - centrality cannot be described (the centre of the network is the ego himself, i.e. the small entrepreneurs), while the other indicators (size, direction, duration and in addition multiplexity, homophily and motivational content - which could be considered a form of intensity) are described in the results session, in order to describe the different nuances of the relational dimension and their changes over time (in the text and as I period - II period in the tables, for instance).

Comment: Clarify which aspects of the case studies are considered “opening gifts” that initiate the cycle of gift exchange. Additionally, address whether this cycle is sustained beyond project implementation or if it has a natural cut-off point.

Response: Within the chosen “observation system”, an opening gift is the support given by the NGO to small entrepreneurs who are initially in a recipient position and who in turn become donors.

In the relational dynamics observed and limited for - methodological reason and using six different name generators in the questionnaire used - to the content of “collaboration on 3 levels: economic-material, knowledge exchange, creation of new relationships” in the ego-networks, however, it is not possible to know whether the small entrepreneurs have first given to others or first received from others. it is only possible to see whether there is bi-directionality (reciprocity) or undirectionality of collaboration.

Only two data collection is not sufficient to hypothize evolution of reciprocity in the future, but the results could suggest if and for whom the reciprocity is weak, as in the discussion session (line…) and this information could address the ong in the implementation of the project.

A brief clarification in the discussion section to offer a better explication was added in lines 480-481.

Comment: Engage in an additional round of proofreading, as some grammar and spelling errors remain in the manuscript, e.g. Table 4, 1 years and 6 month.

Response: A new reading round has occurred and some errors was solved.

Revised version attached and the changes in blue or as track-change.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx