Economic Growth, Foreign Direct Investments and Official Development Assistance Nexus: Panel ARDL Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please, see the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Please find the attached responses to the queries raised.

Regards, 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

·       Please define the abbreviation only in the first notation. In the following text, just use the abbreviation (In line 18, you defined the GDP term, but in lines 23-24, you use the gross domestic product term again).

·       Please add more recent sources in the literature section.

·       Instead of using the heading “Population and sample,” please use the “Data” title.

·       Line:151:  You claim that the sample is randomly selected. Please explain which sampling method you used and why. I think the sampling is unnecessary for such a study.

·       The ARDL bounds test and panel ARDL are different techniques. You can employ the ARDL bounds test to test the existence of a long-run relationship between the variables; however, the panel ARDL approach is an estimation method to compute the long-run coefficients. So you should revise the method section of the paper.

·       Panel ARDL approach provides both long-run and short-run coefficients, so you do not need to estimate the ECM to obtain short-run coefficients.

·       You should use panel cointegration tests to reveal the existence of a cointegration relationship between the series; the significance of the long-run coefficients cannot be a sign of this kind of relationship.

·       You must test the unit root properties of data and also the existence of cross-sectional dependence of the variables.

·       Line 259: There is no Table 1.2 in the text.

·       Line 304: How do you test the causality? Please be aware that the significance of the coefficients of short-run models does not indicate causality.

·       Line 312: Cointegration is a term used to describe long-run relationships. But you use a term as short-run cointegration. Please revise this term.

Author Response

Hi.

Please find the attached responses 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

General: The paper investigates an exciting theme regarding the long-run and short-run cointegrating relationship between foreign direct investment, official development assistance, and economic growth for a selected African country from 2000-2018.

Abstract: Some acronyms are not explained, and they should be avoided. It also lacks a headline of what we should be expecting and what would be the great takeaway from reading the paper.

Introduction: This section should be improved. It needs to be clarified what the goal is and the research question to be answered. Also, it should provide more background on why the topic is good.

Methods: one of the most critical parts is why Africa and the 20 countries were selected. It is a rare generalization, and the authors are particularly interested in them.

All the tables are tough to read, and the text needs to guide the reader on its main takeaway.

Finally, there is no discussion of Dynamic Panel data, which would affect the results. The latter should be discussed.

Conclusion: This section is weak. It needs to provide what the readers should care about after reading the paper. Also, it does not provide any policy-related answer and falls short of the implications of the relationships.

Author Response

Hi.

Please find the attached responses to the queries raised. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper has been improved, it can be accepted in present form (even if some parts of the article could be better realized). 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Clear hypotheses were added and a conceptual framework was added to enhance the background and the analysis sections. 

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have revised the manuscript thoroughly and carefully based on my previous comments. I congratulate the authors.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

The article was language edited and spelling errors were fixed. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Thanks for the revisions. There is an improvement from the last version. However, there are still some things that should be revised:

 Authors should avoid rhetorical questions (e.g., does the..? in line 90) and change them to more straightforward ones, such as the "We hypothesize that X impacts on Y."

Also, as pointed out by the other reviewer, the literature is quite old; it should be updated.

In terms of tables, they should use a more standardized way.

Grammar issues make it challenging to understand what the authors want to express (e.g., lines 249 - 255). It would be highly recommended that someone that could check the style and grammar.

Also, tables are still hard to read. Probably for the sake of a better understanding, you may want to have a diagram that would allow how is the mechanism of how investment affect growth.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please find the attached responses to your queries. 

The article was language edited 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf