Border Proximity, Ports, and Railways: Analyzing Their Impact on County-Level Economic Dynamics in Hungary, 2001–2020

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The problem of regional disparities in EU countries is a very relevant topic and has been much researched. The case of Hungary will also therefore be important.

However, this paper has some limitations and needs to be thoroughly revised.

Firstly, the paper lacks a theoretical framework. It is a paper based on the GDP of HUngria's NUTIII regions over a time series of around 20 years and its relationship with proximity to international borders and the presence of roads and ports. The authors call these factors geographical factors. 

This is a second problem with the paper: "geographical factors" are not the 3 elements that the authors select. There is no geographical characterisation of Hungary in the paper. Geography is more than the presence of a national border, a harbour or a road! 

Thirdly, the methodology is very poor. Absolute GDP and its annual variation are used, but we don't know GDP per capita, for example. We don't know anything about the economic base of the regions or their characteristics.

I repeat, there is no theoretical starting point, which limits everything else, but it could be a paper based on an empirical basis to arrive at some theoretical explanation. You can't accept the conclusions the authors draw, however, because you can't unequivocally see the pattern the authors are trying to demonstrate that exists.

From the data the authors have selected it is not possible to infer certain conclusions, for example between lines 291 and 298 where they are analysing aggregate data for the country as a whole and inferring conclusions for the NUT III regions, the counties. There is a typo and there are two Fig 5. Anyhow, both Fig 5, Fig 6 and Fig 7 are not clear. It would be desirable to work on the data, for instane using GDP per capita. A critical analyse  according to some theoretical models is missing. As it stands, it's just a description of a random data set.

The point of the discussion is not really a discussion but a summary of the literature review, and one that is rather deficient. What's more, the paper doesn't use the literature it mentions.

The authors have to reflect on Hungary's regional disparities, its evolution, the development model, from population distribution to economic activities, and try to define a methodology considering existing studies.  As it stands, the paper fails to demonstrate the argument that the richest regions are those that border other countries or have ports or roads. Neither can it be used for development policies, because policies cannot change the political map of Hungary!  I find it very difficult to make a concrete suggestion for restructuring the paper because the priority is the theoretical framework and the definition of the methodology. Without that, you can't explore the data the authors have collected.

Author Response

Review 1

• The problem of regional disparities in EU countries is a very relevant topic and has been much researched. The case of Hungary will also therefore be important.

We sincerely appreciate your recognition of the significance of this topic. Your acknowledgment encourages us to delve deeper into this important issue.

• However, this paper has some limitations and needs to be thoroughly revised. Firstly, the paper lacks a theoretical framework. It is a paper based on the GDP of HUngria's NUTIII regions over a time series of around 20 years and its relationship with proximity to international borders and the presence of roads and ports. The authors call these factors geographical factors. 

We wholeheartedly agree with your observation regarding the need for a more robust theoretical framework. To address this, we have substantially revised the introduction and structure of the paper to better articulate our theoretical stance and clarify the underpinnings of our research.

• This is a second problem with the paper: "geographical factors" are not the 3 elements that the authors select. There is no geographical characterisation of Hungary in the paper. Geography is more than the presence of a national border, a harbour or a road! 

We appreciate your insightful feedback on our use of the term "geographical factors." Upon reflection, we recognize that our previous terminology did not accurately represent the specific elements we were studying. To rectify this and provide more clarity, we have eliminated the term "geographical factors" from our paper. Instead, we have refocused our research to explicitly address the three concrete factors under investigation: proximity to international borders, the presence of river ports, and the accessibility of major railroads. This change underscores our commitment to precision and ensures that our research accurately reflects the distinct variables we have set out to explore. Thank you for helping us improve the clarity and specificity of our work.

• Thirdly, the methodology is very poor. Absolute GDP and its annual variation are used, but we don't know GDP per capita, for example. We don't know anything about the economic base of the regions or their characteristics.

We are grateful for your critique of our methodology. Based on your feedback, we have recalculated our data using GDP per capita and have expanded our discussion to include a more detailed analysis of regional economic bases and characteristics, ensuring a more comprehensive methodological approach.

• I repeat, there is no theoretical starting point, which limits everything else, but it could be a paper based on an empirical basis to arrive at some theoretical explanation. You can't accept the conclusions the authors draw, however, because you can't unequivocally see the pattern the authors are trying to demonstrate that exists.

Your emphasis on the necessity of a theoretical framework is duly noted, and we thank you for underscoring its importance. We have substantially revisited and revised our theoretical framework to bolster our research's foundational premises and provide clearer insight into our conclusions.

• From the data the authors have selected it is not possible to infer certain conclusions, for example between lines 291 and 298 where they are analysing aggregate data for the country as a whole and inferring conclusions for the NUT III regions, the counties.

Your insight regarding our use of aggregate data and its implications for our conclusions is invaluable. We have revised the pertinent sections to clarify our inferences, underscored the deductive methods employed, and provided a more nuanced analysis of how national indicators can inform our understanding of regional disparities.

• There is a typo and there are two Fig 5.

We apologize for the oversight and express our gratitude for your meticulous attention to detail. All typographical errors, including the duplication of Figure 5, have been corrected.

• Anyhow, both Fig 5, Fig 6 and Fig 7 are not clear. It would be desirable to work on the data, for instane using GDP per capita. A critical analyse  according to some theoretical models is missing. As it stands, it's just a description of a random data set.

Your feedback on the clarity of our figures is greatly appreciated. We have recalculated the GDP per capita data and enhanced the visual and explanatory elements of our figures to improve comprehension and relevance within the context of our theoretical models.

• The point of the discussion is not really a discussion but a summary of the literature review, and one that is rather deficient. What's more, the paper doesn't use the literature it mentions.

We acknowledge the deficiency you've highlighted in our discussion section. In response, we have enriched this section with a more critical analysis and synthesis of the literature, ensuring it resonates better with the themes and findings of our research.

• The authors have to reflect on Hungary's regional disparities, its evolution, the development model, from population distribution to economic activities, and try to define a methodology considering existing studies.  As it stands, the paper fails to demonstrate the argument that the richest regions are those that border other countries or have ports or roads.

We recognize the importance of the themes you've outlined, and they indeed merit thorough exploration. In this study, our aim was not to assert that regions with borders, ports, or roads are the wealthiest, but rather to analyze growth potential. Your comments are invaluable, and we will certainly consider these broader themes in our future research. We have clarified our hypotheses and refined our analysis to better support our assertions.  

• Neither can it be used for development policies, because policies cannot change the political map of Hungary!  I find it very difficult to make a concrete suggestion for restructuring the paper because the priority is the theoretical framework and the definition of the methodology. Without that, you can't explore the data the authors have collected.

We deeply appreciate your pointed critique. In acknowledgment, we have substantially developed our theoretical framework and refined our methodology. Furthermore, we have endeavored to articulate clearer, more tangible policy implications based on our findings, ensuring our research contributes to academic discourse and has practical applicability.

Your feedback has been instrumental in guiding our revisions, and we extend our sincerest gratitude for your thoughtful and detailed review. Your insights have undoubtedly strengthened the quality and depth of our work.

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper utilizes statistical data to analyze the economic disparities in Hungary. The main finding is the determining role of geographical factors in regional economic development.

However, there are still some areas in the research that can be improved.

Are geographical factors the sole determining factors for regional economic disparities? 

This study is region-specific; can its findings be applied to other regions?

This study is based on the analysis of regional economic development disparities using statistical data from various sources. It is recommended to incorporate additional objective observational data, such as nighttime light remote sensing data. These data can provide long-term, continuous insights into economic activity.

The structure and writing logic of the article need improvement. The current English contains some colloquial characteristics and lacks academic rigor . There are many short paragraphs (only 1-2 sentences) in the text. They can be merged into more comprehensive paragraphs based on their respective themes.

Figure 1 is not a complete map and needs to include elements such as coordinates and a compass rose. Using a choropleth map for GRP would better illustrate regional differences.

All tables in the text should be adjusted and optimized to meet the requirements of the MDPI journal. This includes column widths and font alignment.

It is recommended that the authors thoroughly revise the article before considering it for publication.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

• This paper utilizes statistical data to analyze the economic disparities in Hungary. The main finding is the determining role of geographical factors in regional economic development.

We express our heartfelt gratitude for your acknowledgment of the essence and relevance of our research topic. Your appreciation motivates us to probe further into this critical subject..

• However, there are still some areas in the research that can be improved. Are geographical factors the sole determining factors for regional economic disparities?

We acknowledge your pertinent query regarding the exclusivity of geographical factors in determining regional economic disparities. In light of your feedback, we have refined our terminology for precision and clarity, omitting the broad term "geographical factors" and instead concentrating on three distinct elements: proximity to international borders, the presence of river ports, and the accessibility of major railroads. While these factors are crucial, they indeed do not operate in isolation. Our methodology focuses on analyzing these specific elements due to their pronounced impact, although this does not negate the influence of other socio-economic, political, or environmental factors that also play a substantial role in regional disparities.

• This study is region-specific; can its findings be applied to other regions?

We affirm your observation and clarify in our discussion that while our study is rooted in Hungary's context, the insights gained—especially those pertaining to the influence of infrastructure and geographical proximity on economic activity—have broader applicability and could be instrumental in guiding similar research in other regional contexts..

• This study is based on the analysis of regional economic development disparities using statistical data from various sources. It is recommended to incorporate additional objective observational data, such as nighttime light remote sensing data. These data can provide long-term, continuous insights into economic activity.

We appreciate your suggestion to incorporate nighttime light remote sensing data. While this data type offers valuable insights into economic activity, it may not directly correspond to the specific economic indicators our research seeks to analyze. Nonetheless, recognizing the potential depth it could add, we will consider such data in future research. In this iteration, we have enhanced our methodology by recalculating findings using GDP per capita to bolster the reliability and comprehensiveness of our conclusions.

• The structure and writing logic of the article need improvement. The current English contains some colloquial characteristics and lacks academic rigor . There are many short paragraphs (only 1-2 sentences) in the text. They can be merged into more comprehensive paragraphs based on their respective themes.

Your critique regarding the structure and style of our manuscript is well-received. We have undertaken extensive revisions to enhance the logical flow and academic rigor of the text, merging short paragraphs into more cohesive units and refining the language to meet scholarly standards.

• Figure 1 is not a complete map and needs to include elements such as coordinates and a compass rose. Using a choropleth map for GRP would better illustrate regional differences.

Thank you for pointing out the incompleteness of Figure 1. In response, we have revised the map to include essential geographical information.

• All tables in the text should be adjusted and optimized to meet the requirements of the MDPI journal. This includes column widths and font alignment.

We have meticulously revised all tables to conform precisely to the formatting standards stipulated by the Economies MS Word Template, ensuring that elements such as column widths and font alignments adhere to the journal's requirements. 

• It is recommended that the authors thoroughly revise the article before considering it for publication.

We have taken your recommendation to heart and conducted a comprehensive revision of the entire article to enhance its clarity, coherence, and scholarly contribution. We believe these efforts have significantly improved the manuscript, making it more fitting for consideration for publication.

Your incisive feedback has been crucial in guiding our revision process, and we extend our deepest gratitude for the time and meticulous attention you have invested in reviewing our work. Your insights have greatly contributed to enhancing the quality and precision of our research.

Reviewer 3 Report

Title: Geographical Factors and Regional Economic Disparities: A Two-Decade Analysis of Hungarian Counties

The topic is too general compared to the content of the paper, which primarily focuses on Gross Domestic Product and some information but without statistical support for Indicators of Hungary's foreign trade activity. Economic disparities are the result of a complex interplay of multiple factors, including geographical, historical, governmental, social, and economic variables. Understanding these diverse factors is crucial for policymakers and stakeholders seeking to address and reduce economic disparities within and between regions or countries.
The indicators are presented in percentage figures but without a clear reference base. There is uncertainty regarding the accuracy of the data

The recommendation should be pointed out from the conclusions and only related to the results of the study

Author Response

Reviewer 3

• The topic is too general compared to the content of the paper, which primarily focuses on Gross Domestic Productand some information but without statistical support for Indicators of Hungary's foreign trade activity. Economic disparities are the result of a complex interplay of multiple factors, including geographical, historical, governmental, social, and economic variables. Understanding these diverse factors is crucial for policymakers and stakeholders seeking to address and reduce economic disparities within and between regions or countries.

We express our gratitude for your insightful comments regarding the breadth of the topic in relation to the content of our paper. Acknowledging the complexity of economic disparities, we have honed our focus and terminology for greater specificity and clarity. We have moved away from the general term "geographical factors," emphasizing instead three key elements: proximity to international borders, presence of river ports, and accessibility of major railroads. We concur that these factors are part of a larger, multifaceted matrix of variables contributing to economic disparities. Our methodology concentrates on these elements because of their significant impact, but we wholeheartedly agree that they form part of a broader socio-economic, political, and environmental context affecting regional disparities. Your feedback has been invaluable in guiding us toward a more nuanced and precise framing of our research focus.

• The indicators are presented in percentage figures but without a clear reference base. There is uncertainty regarding the accuracy of the data

Thank you for raising this important concern regarding the presentation and clarity of the data used in our research. To enhance transparency and verifiability, we have ensured that our methodology section comprehensively details the sources of our data, providing direct links for ease of access, and outlines each calculation to allow interested readers to cross-check the figures. While presenting exhaustive statistical data for 18 counties over 20 years within the paper is impractical, we recognize the need for representative data. Consequently, we have introduced Table 2, which encapsulates average indicators for both GDP and GDP per capita from 2000 to 2020, thereby providing a clearer reference point and enhancing the contextual understanding of our findings.

• The recommendation should be pointed out from the conclusions and only related to the results of the study

We appreciate your astute observation concerning the coherence between our conclusions and the ensuing recommendations. In response, we have thoroughly revised the conclusion section of our paper to ensure that all recommendations are directly inferred from and aligned with the results of our study. This revision not only strengthens the logical consistency of our paper but also ensures that the recommendations are grounded in and substantiated by the specific findings of our research.

Your rigorous review and constructive feedback have greatly assisted us in refining our paper, enhancing its accuracy and scholarly contribution. We are sincerely thankful for the time and expertise you have devoted to this process, and we believe that your insights have been instrumental in elevating the quality of our work.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The author has responded and provided an explanation to my comments. It has mostly met my requirements. However, Figure 1 is still unclear, and I suggest using a high-resolution image.