Use of Union Funds in Developing Agricultural Entrepreneurship between 2014 and 2020 in Poland
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
- What economic theory is being developed by this research? What economic theory is it based on? It should be supplemented as part of a literature search.
- Hellwig approach: It is quite old approach which is not usually used in scientific papers (except for Polish authors). I would recommend to use more modern approaches or at least to explain, why it is necessary to use this methos.
Hellwig, Zdzisław. On the optimal choice of predictors. Study VI in Z. Gostkowski (ed.): Toward a system of quantitative indicators of components of human resources development; Paris: UNESCO, 1968; 23 pages.
- Page, line 157-159: What is the source of the stated claims (numbers)? From which years are they?
- The dependence is solved only on the basis of correlation coefficient, it would be advisable to use a more rigorous method, e.g. using multiple regression. Based only on the correlation coefficient, it is not possible to draw conclusions such as: "relative amount of support is independent from the districts' level of economic development" or other conclusions on page 12, line 372-374.
- Only a few factors have been investigated that influence whether farmers will apply for support in the mentioned program - what about (for example) administrative burden, the age of the enterprise, the production focus of the enterprise,... ? Then no significant findings can be made. The only conclusion/finding is "The negative relationship between the local agrarian structure and the use of support funds for agricultural entrepreneurship...".
- The only recommendation is "that agricultural and regional policymakers should promote entrepreneurship among members of farming families. This includes both an entrepreneurial attitude and the ability to manage a business in its technological, economic, financial and marketing dimensions." - What do the authors mean by this? What should this promotion look like? It is absolutely a vague general recommendation, not even based on the research presented.
Author Response
December 21th, 2023
Dear Rewievers,
Thank you for your insightful review of our study.
We have made the following corrections:
Comment 1
What economic theory is being developed by this research? What economic theory is it based on? It should be supplemented as part of a literature search
Reply: In the introduction, lines 36-38 pointed to the concept of multifunctional rural development as a theory to explain the research.
Comment 2
Hellwig approach: It is quite old approach which is not usually used in scientific papers (except for Polish authors). I would recommend to use more modern approaches or at least to explain, why it is necessary to use this methos.
Reply: In lines 139-143, Hellwig's method was detailed, while citing new literature where it was used.
Comment 3
Page, line 157-159: What is the source of the stated claims (numbers)? From which years are they?
Reply: References were supplemented (position 36 in line 198)
Comment 4
The dependence is solved only on the basis of correlation coefficient, it would be advisable to use a more rigorous method, e.g. using multiple regression. Based only on the correlation coefficient, it is not possible to draw conclusions such as: "relative amount of support is independent from the districts' level of economic development" or other conclusions on page 12, line 372-374. In the methodology section (lines 136-137), a section on the regression analysis performed was added.
Reply: In lines 463-486, the results were supplemented with a univariate linear regression model. You suggested performing a multivariate regression, but nevertheless (as noted in the text)” The rationale behind this approach is that “Economy” (the synthetic characteristic), the “Share of own incomes in total incomes at commune level,” and the “Share of agricultural land in the area of the commune” were not correlated with the independent characteristic named “Payments under the sub-measure Bonuses for the setting up of a non-agricultural activity.” Conversely, the “Percentage of farms larger than 10 ha” and the “Share of agricultural land held by farms larger than 10 ha” were strongly correlated with one another (with a correlation coefficient of 0.9)”
Comment 5
Only a few factors have been investigated that influence whether farmers will apply for support in the mentioned program - what about (for example) administrative burden, the age of the enterprise, the production focus of the enterprise,... ? Then no significant findings can be made. The only conclusion/finding is "The negative relationship between the local agrarian structure and the use of support funds for agricultural entrepreneurship...".
Reply: In lines 189-193 indicate the scope of the study, which includes the relationship between the intensity of the use of support for agricultural entrepreneurship and the socio-economic characteristics of the space at the discrict (poviat).
Comment 6
The only recommendation is "that agricultural and regional policymakers should promote entrepreneurship among members of farming families. This includes both an entrepreneurial attitude and the ability to manage a business in its technological, economic, financial and marketing dimensions." - What do the authors mean by this? What should this promotion look like? It is absolutely a vague general recommendation, not even based on the research presented.
Reply: The part of conclusions (lines 523-529) were supplemented with detailed recommendations for policy, pointing out that the promotion of entrepreneurship should particularly concern areas with a fragmented agrarian structure, according to the survey. In areas with a higher proportion of small farms, there is more interest in the measures studied.
Other reply: References have been supplemented.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This is an interesting, albeit, limited study. Additional clarifications, as noted in the attached file, should help to improve understanding.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Comments on the Quality of English Language
See highlighted words, phrases, etc. in the attached file.
Author Response
December 21th, 2023
Dear Rewievers,
Thank you for your insightful review of our study.
We have made the following corrections:
Comment 1
How is it possible to have the same value, "38,81" be representative of two separate categories? Each category should have unique parameters not found in other categories. Please check all.
Reply: The map legend has been improved. Individual categories contain unique values. The same accuracy has been applied everywhere.
Comment 2
This table lacks sufficient statistical information to determine the merit of presenting these statistics.
Insufficient statistical information to determine the value of this statistic.
Reply: In lines 463-486, the results were supplemented with a univariate linear regression model. Other review suggested performing a multivariate regression, but nevertheless (as noted in the text)” The rationale behind this approach is that “Economy” (the synthetic characteristic), the “Share of own incomes in total incomes at commune level,” and the “Share of agricultural land in the area of the commune” were not correlated with the independent characteristic named “Payments under the sub-measure Bonuses for the setting up of a non-agricultural activity.” Conversely, the “Percentage of farms larger than 10 ha” and the “Share of agricultural land held by farms larger than 10 ha” were strongly correlated with one another (with a correlation coefficient of 0.9)”
Comment 3
Table 2 should be presented after its first mention, not before it. Readers do not understand Table 2 as presented above because there isn't an explanation of the data in the narrative. Move Table 2 after this paragraph.
Reply: Table 1 was moved to line 155, and the name was changed from Figure 1 to Table 1.
Other reply: References have been supplemented. List of abbreviations we moved to lines 540-543.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The article "Use of Union funds in developing agricultural entrepreneurship between 2014 and 2020 in Poland" deals with a topic of current interest. Especially in a situation where publications such as this one, which examines the use of European funds in the rural world, are very timely. The manuscript is well written, easy to read, and it is clear what the authors want to say. It is not, therefore, one of those texts that you sometimes come across that, no matter how many times you read and reread its paragraphs, you do not fully understand. The methodology is appropriate to the object of study. For all these reasons, the work deserves to be published. However, before doing so, the authors should make some reforms in order to improve certain aspects. For this task, I suggest that they take into account the following recommendations:
1) In lines 13 and 14 of the manuscript, it is stated that " the decisions on co-financing the measures devoted to non-agricultural economic activity heavily depend on the agrarian structure." In this respect, some references to what is happening in other European countries in relation to the issue studied in the manuscript would allow the readers to assess to what extent this is a "unique singularity" of Poland or rather the manifestation of a phenomenon that is also widespread, with varying intensity, in other European Union (EU) contexts.
2) The introductory section remains at the level of too general statements. A few paragraphs should be added to summarize the situation in Poland with regard to the issue under consideration. The authors should bear in mind that their article is addressed to readers who know nothing, or at best very little, about the rural reality of Poland. I say this because this expansion of non-agricultural activities in rural areas is not exclusive to Poland but is often a general manifestation of a phenomenon of growing deagrarianization in many rural areas, which is present in numerous other parts of the world, particularly in the rural areas of the EU.
3) What is called "Figure 1" on page 3 is not really a figure but a kind of table.
4) Between lines 172 and 189 it says: "Conversely, from the social perspective, entrepreneurship is determined by individual human characteristics...............plays a major role as it is largely decisive for whether or not the goals can be successfully achieved." Well, I think that these statements are too general and obvious, what should be done is to show how everything that is said in these paragraphs develops and happens in the specific case of Poland or rather in the different specific cases (which I am sure there are) of the different regions of Poland.
5) What is said in the section of the manuscript entitled " 4.2014–2020 . RDP and the Strategic Plan for the 2023–2027 RDP vs. entrepreneurship: basic information" should have been part of the Introduction or at least of the first sections of the manuscript.
6) The various maps included in the text are very appropriate and useful, but they would be easier to understand if the manuscript had also included a general map with the names of the various rural districts of Poland studied, as this would help non-Polish readers to better locate geographically all the valuable information provided by the maps now included in the manuscript.
7) What is said in footnote 1 at the bottom of the page should not be in a footnote but in the main text, for example in the Introduction or in the Methodology. In any case, I leave it to the authors to decide in which section to place this paragraph, but I insist that it be included in the main text and not in a footnote.
8) In line with my previous recommendation, I would integrate what is said in footnote 2, at the bottom of page 11, into the main text of the Introduction section.
9) I would not have combined the "Results" and "Discussion" sections, but I would have placed the discussion section separately in order to try to go deeper into the assessment of how the phenomenon under study has developed in the specific cases of the different rural areas of Poland. Similarly, I would have included in this separate Discussion section an assessment of the progress made and the challenges still to be faced in relation to the issue under study.
10) The above way of organizing the sections of the text would have left the way open for me to add an additional section devoted to "Limitations and Recommendations". This section, although very brief (it does not need to exceed half a page), should highlight what the authors consider to be some of the limitations of their study at a theoretical and methodological level, and even point to future lines of research, as well as making some recommendations to those responsible for implementing and/or managing rural policies.
I will leave it up to the authors to decide how they will take into account and implement the above recommendations, which are basically made with the constructive intention of helping them to improve their work and make it more attractive and understandable to a larger audience, since this type of work deserves to be disseminated among more people in the world the better.
Author Response
December 21th, 2023
Dear Rewievers,
Thank you for your insightful review of our study.
We have made the following corrections:
Comment 1
In lines 13 and 14 of the manuscript, it is stated that " the decisions on co-financing the measures devoted to non-agricultural economic activity heavily depend on the agrarian structure." In this respect, some references to what is happening in other European countries in relation to the issue studied in the manuscript would allow the readers to assess to what extent this is a "unique singularity" of Poland or rather the manifestation of a phenomenon that is also widespread, with varying intensity, in other European Union (EU) contexts.
Comment 2
The introductory section remains at the level of too general statements. A few paragraphs should be added to summarize the situation in Poland with regard to the issue under consideration. The authors should bear in mind that their article is addressed to readers who know nothing, or at best very little, about the rural reality of Poland. I say this because this expansion of non-agricultural activities in rural areas is not exclusive to Poland but is often a general manifestation of a phenomenon of growing deagrarianization in many rural areas, which is present in numerous other parts of the world, particularly in the rural areas of the EU.
Reply: In the introduction, lines 57-85 pointed to Poland's specific conditions regarding the phenomena under study, while hinting at the possibility of extrapolating the results to other countries in Europe and the World. The reviewer in his comments suggested that these remarks be included in the executive summary, but nevertheless, due to the limited volume of this part of the study, they were included in the introduction.
Comments 3
What is called "Figure 1" on page 3 is not really a figure but a kind of table.
Reply: Table 1 was moved to line 155, and the name was changed from Figure 1 to Table 1.
Comments 4
Between lines 172 and 189 it says: "Conversely, from the social perspective, entrepreneurship is determined by individual human characteristics...............plays a major role as it is largely decisive for whether or not the goals can be successfully achieved." Well, I think that these statements are too general and obvious, what should be done is to show how everything that is said in these paragraphs develops and happens in the specific case of Poland or rather in the different specific cases (which I am sure there are) of the different regions of Poland.
Reply: In lines 251-254 indicate (with reference to the literature) the importance of entrepreneurship in the development of Poland after the collapse of real socialism. This passage is a reference to the specifics of Poland's theoretical consideration of the importance of entrepreneurship.
Comment 5
What is said in the section of the manuscript entitled " 4.2014–2020 . RDP and the Strategic Plan for the 2023–2027 RDP vs. entrepreneurship: basic information" should have been part of the Introduction or at least of the first sections of the manuscript.
Reply: The part titled The essence and importance of rural entrepreneurship was included in the chapter Results and discussion
Comment 6
The various maps included in the text are very appropriate and useful, but they would be easier to understand if the manuscript had also included a general map with the names of the various rural districts of Poland studied, as this would help non-Polish readers to better locate geographically all the valuable information provided by the maps now included in the manuscript.
Reply: In lines 316-317, the title of Figure 1 provides a link to a website listing Polish districts. The purpose of this was to make it easier for international readers to understand the specifics of the Polish administrative system.
Comment 7
What is said in footnote 1 at the bottom of the page should not be in a footnote but in the main text, for example in the Introduction or in the Methodology. In any case, I leave it to the authors to decide in which section to place this paragraph, but I insist that it be included in the main text and not in a footnote.
Reply: The footnote were moved to lines 78-85
Comment 8
In line with my previous recommendation, I would integrate what is said in footnote 2, at the bottom of page 11, into the main text of the Introduction section.
Reply: The footnote were moved to lines 59-66
Comment 9
I would not have combined the "Results" and "Discussion" sections, but I would have placed the discussion section separately in order to try to go deeper into the assessment of how the phenomenon under study has developed in the specific cases of the different rural areas of Poland. Similarly, I would have included in this separate Discussion section an assessment of the progress made and the challenges still to be faced in relation to the issue under study.
Reply: As the Resuts and discussion chapter contains both the results and their broader context, we finally decided not to separate it.
Comment 10
The above way of organizing the sections of the text would have left the way open for me to add an additional section devoted to "Limitations and Recommendations". This section, although very brief (it does not need to exceed half a page), should highlight what the authors consider to be some of the limitations of their study at a theoretical and methodological level, and even point to future lines of research, as well as making some recommendations to those responsible for implementing and/or managing rural policies.
Reply: We have not introduced a new chapter, although we have included a section in the methodology section (lines 289-293) that refers to the limitation of the scope of the study.
Other reply: References have been supplemented. List of abbreviations we moved to lines 540-543.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
