The Effect of Eco-Scheme Support on Romanian Farms—A Gini Index Decomposition by Income Source at Farm Level
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Overall, the paper explores a relatively practical issue”The effect of eco-scheme support on Romanian farms”. The writing logic is relatively smooth, and the method is relatively reasonable, which well explains the heterogeneity of income effects among farmers of different scales. The following suggestions are proposed for reference:
1. The title of the paper is not appropriate, it is recommended to optimize it.
2. The introduction section is too lengthy in proposing research topics. There is no summary of innovative points yet.
3. What are the standards and basis for dividing farm sizes? Are the classification standards for different crops consistent?
4. How to decompose and determine the proportion of eco-scheme support in total subsidies (Common Agricultural Policy ).
Overall, the paper explores a relatively practical issue”The effect of eco-scheme support on Romanian farms”. The writing logic is relatively smooth, and the method is relatively reasonable, which well explains the heterogeneity of income effects among farmers of different scales. The following suggestions are proposed for reference:
1. The title of the paper is not appropriate, it is recommended to optimize it.
2. The introduction section is too lengthy in proposing research topics. There is no summary of innovative points yet.
3. What are the standards and basis for dividing farm sizes? Are the classification standards for different crops consistent?
4. How to decompose and determine the proportion of eco-scheme support in total subsidies (Common Agricultural Policy ).
Author Response
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper explores changes to CAP by investigating how new CAP rules could impact cropping structures, with each structure represented by the baseline crop mix of 2019, 2020, and 2021. The authors use assignment rules based on the eco-policy to adjust acreages to meet compliance measures. The authors then recalculate the retrospective profits for each of the three revised structures. This was done for three different farms defined as large, medium and small. The authors use a Gini inequality measure to identify inequality in crop allocation brought about by the CAP changes.
Once these conditions were set the authors replaced the old subsidy scheme with the new subsidy scheme, tracking changes in operating margin (increased or decreases) and adding changes in subsidy for regulatory compliance.
Iamnot familiar with the Gini coefficient used in this context . It seems that the authors are treating each crop as an income source and using the Gini measure to determine whether the policy has increased or decreased inequality across the crop strategies. For example on page 13 “where income is more unevenly distributed among crops due to price fluctuations and land is more evenly distributed among crops (due to a lower Gini for subsidies).” I am not sure that I would have used inequality as a metric, since raw inequality could be offset by changes in risk, that offer a different measure of stability.
The decomposition approach appears to be ad hoc in nature. For example in concluding the authors write “Is the case of medium-size farm where the cropping structures were unbalanced and difficult to adapt. These are mainly versions in which we changed the cropping patterns to fit the requirements.”
There are of course a large number of ways in which the farms could have adapted their structures to the eco-policy while not disrupting the planned rotations of the farms. In this sense I am very surprised that the authors would not have simply developed a mathematical programming model (Linear profit maximizing or quadratic risk minimizing) in which constraints on required rotations and regulatory complaints could have been added. Instead of using the Gini measure, the opportunity costs of the eco policies could have been measured by the shadow prices on the policy constraints. As reported it is not clear what the management goal is in an economics context, i.e. profit maximization, risk minimization and so we have no ideas as to whether the 9 different strategies are in fact economically optimal. At best, the authors can report that the new policies are not neutral The results are indicative of possible outcomes, but nothing can really be said about optimality or efficiency, or even equity.
Having said all this the paper was easy to understand. It took me a while to figure out that the three structures for each farm type corresponded to the three years that data was available. The paper is very readable although there are a lot of numbers and tables.
Author Response
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript provides sufficient information regarding the effect of eco-scheme support on Romanian farms. I suggest the following improvements:
1. The abstract section needs revision.
"The Common Agricultural Policy has been and is constantly changing and adapting to current circumstances." Please elaborate on current circumstances, as the statement is ambiguous.
"In line with these changes, a new aid scheme will be introduced in Romania from 2023," The scheme is yet to be implemented and can be discussed in the main body of the manuscript.
The findings are stated in detail, but no policy implications can be seen. Please add suggestions in the abstract.
2. The introduction is unnecessarily long and presents valuable information, but the authors need to shorten this segment and adhere to the topic.
"Despite all these goals, there are many issues regarding the eco-schemes." What are these issues? Please indicate/explain.
3. Need for the study needs strengthening. The authors claimed that not much work had been done previously.
"In Romania, there is not so much work assessing the potential impact of the measures of CAP for the period 2023-2027."
It is true, but there is still a need to find a research gap the current study intends to fill. It can be done by going through the previous related studies. 2023-2027 is yet to come; how can authors assess the potential impact? If work is done on these lines, what could it be worth?
4. Moreover, Th introduction looks more like a review of the literature. The review section can be added separately.
5. "The research was carried out starting from the data provided by three farms of different sizes (small, medium and large) for the years 2019, 2020 and 2021." why the authors not use data for 2022? If the updated data is unavailable, the authors must mention it.
6. Are three farms sufficient for extracting inferences? Is the sample representative of the total population? The crop structures as indicated are followed most commonly? How can farmers not following the same crop structures benefit from this study?
7. The results have been sufficiently discussed/explained.
8. The conclusion section is discussed in detail, but the suggestions/recommendations are missing. Please add.
9. What are the limitations of the study? Information regarding the limitations will help future researchers.
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for taking into account my comments regarding your manuscript. The changes are usually highlighted or written in color. The second response to your updated manuscript is as under:
1. The abstract section has been significantly improved. Changes have been made as suggested. At this stage, I suggest a further improvement: please avoid using "our study," “our findings," etc. First-person pronouns are usually not preferred in scientific literature.
2. The introduction section has been reduced as suggested, and sufficient changes have been made.
3. Need for the study section has been shifted to methodology. However, it is not as per suggestion. It can further be strengthened, and I suggest the needful be done.
4. Changes have been made in the introduction section as suggested.
5. The rest of the issues have been clarified/ ammended as per suggestions, like Data availability has been discussed.
6. Suggestions/ recommendations have now been added.
7. Limitations of the study have been discussed.
8. Writeup still needs improvements.
Extensive editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
