Interrelationships Among Government Participation, Population and Growth of per Capita Income: Inquiry on Top Twenty Income-Holding Countries in the World
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The study is of real interest because it examines whether per capita income growth is explained by the size of the government intervention coupled with the working population size in the world’s top twenty countries regarding aggregate income.
1. The Abstract is well organized for a better understanding following the structure background, methods, results, and conclusions.
2. The structure of the paper should be better organized because it affects its quality. The reader cannot understand the sections in the paper. I recommend writing the paper more accurately per the journal template.
3. The Introduction can be better organized and should emphasize better the novelty of the study. I recommend the “Objective of the Study” and “Contributions of the Study” presented in The Section “Review of Related Literature” to be included in the “Introduction” section.
The Introduction should cite all discussed papers (e.g., Keynes, J.M.).
When the authors mention “The classical and neoclassical economists,” they should give some examples of authors.
3. The Section “Theoretical Model” presents a series of production functions without preparing the context and, of course, citing the formulas' authors. The reader does not understand if the formulas are developed by authors or are developed by different scientists.
4. The Section “Public Sector Linkages with Sustainable Development” is very short, and I recommend it be included in the Literature Review Section. 37 papers cover the literature review.
5. The Section Review of Related Literature should include the previous two sections (Theoretical Model and Public Sector Linkages with Sustainable Development) written in a coherent manner. The “Objective of the Study” and “Contributions of the Study” should be moved in the Introduction and Data Source in The Methodology section.
6. The Methodology Section is understandable in reading and correct. I recommend citing all papers research involved and also the results to be correlated with the literature
7. The Results section is well explained. The Conclusions are in synthesis.
Author Response
Economies
Review Reports
As the author I am immensely grateful to the insightful comments and suggestions made by the honourable reviewer which helped me to revise and improve the quality of the paper. I have tried my best to revise the article as per the comments and suggestions point-wise as far as possible. The Red coloured marks are given for the revised areas as per this report and the Blue coloured marks are for the other reviewer’s reports. Somewhere there are mixtures of the two corrections.
Reviewer # 1
The study is of real interest because it examines whether per capita income growth is explained by the size of the government intervention coupled with the working population size in the world’s top twenty countries regarding aggregate income.
- The Abstract is well organized for a better understanding following the structure background, methods, results, and conclusions.
Author’s Response: Thank you for the observation and good comment on the basic structure of the article as captured by the Abstract.
- The structure of the paper should be better organized because it affects its quality. The reader cannot understand the sections in the paper. I recommend writing the paper more accurately per the journal template.
Author’s Response: Thank you for the suggestions. I have rearranged the sections with numbering (as per journal’s template) and added a paragraph on the organization of the paper (marked in red colour in page 3, Line 113-115).
- The Introduction can be better organized and should emphasize better the novelty of the study. I recommend the “Objective of the Study” and “Contributions of the Study” presented in The Section “Review of Related Literature” to be included in the “Introduction” section.
The Introduction should cite all discussed papers (e.g., Keynes, J.M.).
When the authors mention “The classical and neoclassical economists,” they should give some examples of authors.
Author’s Response: Thank you for the suggestions. I have rearranged the objective and contributions of the study and added them at the end part of the Introduction. Besides, I have also added some references from classical, Keynes etc. and rearranged the References (all are marked in red colour)
- The Section “Theoretical Model” presents a series of production functions without preparing the context and, of course, citing the formulas' authors. The reader does not understand if the formulas are developed by authors or are developed by different scientists.
Author’s Response: Thank you for pointing out the observations. I have added an introduction to the model and rearranged the equations and terms to make better presentation of the section (all are marked in red and blue colours)
- The Section “Public Sector Linkages with Sustainable Development” is very short, and I recommend it be included in the Literature Review Section. 37 papers cover the literature review.
Author’s Response: Thank you for the observations and suggestions. I have added this section into Literature Review Section. I have added 35 more studies in the Literature Review and Introduction Sections as suggested (all are marked in red and blue colours).
- The Section Review of Related Literature should include the previous two sections (Theoretical Model and Public Sector Linkages with Sustainable Development) written in a coherent manner. The “Objective of the Study” and “Contributions of the Study” should be moved in the Introduction and Data Source in The Methodology section.
Author’s Response: Thank you for the suggestions. I have done as per the suggestions (all are marked in red colour).
- The Methodology Section is understandable in reading and correct. I recommend citing all papers research involved and also the results to be correlated with the literature
Author’s Response: Thank you for the compliments
- The Results section is well explained. The Conclusions are in synthesis.
Author’s Response: Thank you for the compliments
Thank you again for your effort in reviewing the paper and providing precious suggestions. I have tried to address all the points as far as possible.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The manuscript is well-written, and the empirical analysis is conducted rigorously. However, there are aspects of the study that need to be improved.
Below, I outline several specific comments and suggestions, particularly regarding gaps with the existing theoretical and empirical literature.
1. The theoretical model presented in the paper appears to closely resemble the framework proposed by Barro (1990), although with a different assumption regarding returns to scale. To ensure clarity and to appropriately situate the contribution within the existing literature, it would be a good idea to explicitly reference Barro’s work in the section in which the theoretical framework is proposed. A brief discussion highlighting the similarities and differences would better contextualize the approach within the theoretical framework.
2. In row 126, a limit formula is presented as a pasted image rather than using the equation editor. For writing consistency, I recommended reproducing the formula using the equation editor.
3. The discussion on assumptions of increasing returns to scale and the endogenous growth model lacks references to foundational and famous theoretical papers that have shaped the extensive literature on endogenous growth and increasing returns to scale assumption over the decades. These influential works, which laid the groundwork for the principles of endogenous growth theory and highlighted the significance of increasing returns to scale, should be discussed to properly contextualize the analysis within the main theoretical literature.
4. The introduction briefly mentions the role of public intervention in affecting private investments but does not provide a sufficient contextualization within the existing empirical literature on this topic. This omission arises a gap problem, particularly given the relevance of this issue to the article’s topic. To address this, I recommend discussing recent studies that analyse the impact of public investment on private investment (or private capital formation), with a focus on works that explore the relationship between public and private investments that use cointegration techniques and estimate long-run effects. This approach would better align with the cointegration and ECM specifications used in this paper.
5. The mechanisms through which government intervention may influence GDP growth require a more thorough and explicit exploration in the Discussion section. In particular, it is essential to properly refer to the recent empirical literature, as suggested in the previous comment, to provide a well-rounded view of the mechanisms that likely characterize the relationship under analysis. As noted in the introduction, a fundamental connection could lie in the effects of government expenditure, particularly public investments, on private investments (or private capital formation). A crucial aspect to address is whether such public investments have a crowding-in or crowding-out effect on private capital formation (or both, depending on the country). Discussing this point and comparing the results thoroughly would enrich the analysis and help bridge the gap with recent empirical literature. Country heterogeneity might be an issue to account for.
By addressing the above-mentioned points, the article would not only strengthen its theoretical and empirical grounding but also ensure that its contributions are more clearly articulated within the broader academic discourse. This would make the study more impactful and accessible to the academic community.
Author Response
Economies
Review Reports
Being the author, I am enormously indebted to the valuable comments and suggestions made by the honourable reviewer which helped me to revise and improve the quality of the paper. I have tried my best to revise the article as per the comments and suggestions of the review one-by-one as far as possible. The Blue coloured marks are given for the revised areas as per this report and the red colour is for the other reviewer’s reports. Somewhere there are mixtures of the two corrections.
Reviewer # 2
The manuscript is well-written, and the empirical analysis is conducted rigorously. However, there are aspects of the study that need to be improved.
Below, I outline several specific comments and suggestions, particularly regarding gaps with the existing theoretical and empirical literature.
- The theoretical model presented in the paper appears to closely resemble the framework proposed by Barro (1990), although with a different assumption regarding returns to scale. To ensure clarity and to appropriately situate the contribution within the existing literature, it would be a good idea to explicitly reference Barro’s work in the section in which the theoretical framework is proposed. A brief discussion highlighting the similarities and differences would better contextualize the approach within the theoretical framework.
Author’s Response: Thank you for the observations and suggestions. I have modified a bit to the existing model of Barro (1990) by adding an interaction term, G/Y*L, as captured by A in the production function (all marked in blue colour). Also, I have given an introductory note to the theoretical model. The positions of the different sections of the paper including the Theoretical model have been rearranged as per the suggestions of the honourable reviewer 1.
- In row 126, a limit formula is presented as a pasted image rather than using the equation editor. For writing consistency, I recommended reproducing the formula using the equation editor.
Author’s Response: Thank you for pointing out the mistake of improper presentation of the equation. Sorry for that. I have accordingly corrected it.
- The discussion on assumptions of increasing returns to scale and the endogenous growth model lacks references to foundational and famous theoretical papers that have shaped the extensive literature on endogenous growth and increasing returns to scale assumption over the decades. These influential works, which laid the groundwork for the principles of endogenous growth theory and highlighted the significance of increasing returns to scale, should be discussed to properly contextualize the analysis within the main theoretical literature.
Author’s Response: Thank you for the suggestion. I have accommodated your suggestion and revised the introductory part of the Theoretical model (refer to Lines 192-195).
- The introduction briefly mentions the role of public intervention in affecting private investments but does not provide a sufficient contextualization within the existing empirical literature on this topic. This omission arises a gap problem, particularly given the relevance of this issue to the article’s topic. To address this, I recommend discussing recent studies that analyse the impact of public investment on private investment (or private capital formation), with a focus on works that explore the relationship between public and private investments that use cointegration techniques and estimate long-run effects. This approach would better align with the cointegration and ECM specifications used in this paper.
Author’s Response: Thank you for the suggestion. I have revised the Introduction section according to your suggestion and added some past as well as recent literatures to identify the crowding-in or out effects (all blue coloured marks in the Introduction section).
- The mechanisms through which government intervention may influence GDP growth require a more thorough and explicit exploration in the Discussion section. In particular, it is essential to properly refer to the recent empirical literature, as suggested in the previous comment, to provide a well-rounded view of the mechanisms that likely characterize the relationship under analysis. As noted in the introduction, a fundamental connection could lie in the effects of government expenditure, particularly public investments, on private investments (or private capital formation). A crucial aspect to address is whether such public investments have a crowding-in or crowding-out effect on private capital formation (or both, depending on the country). Discussing this point and comparing the results thoroughly would enrich the analysis and help bridge the gap with recent empirical literature. Country heterogeneity might be an issue to account for.
Author’s Response: Thank you again for the valuable suggestion. I have revised the Discussion part by accommodating the crowding-in, out factors and produced some comparative analysis with the existing literature. In addition, some necessary revisions have also been done in the Conclusion Section (please refer to blue coloured marks in both the sections).
By addressing the above-mentioned points, the article would not only strengthen its theoretical and empirical grounding but also ensure that its contributions are more clearly articulated within the broader academic discourse. This would make the study more impactful and accessible to the academic community.
Author’s Response: Thank you again for your effort in reviewing the paper and providing invaluable suggestions. I have tried to address all the points as far as possible.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
I am satisfied with the revisions made
