Politically Driven Cycles in Fiscal Policy: Evidence from Disaggregated Budgets in Middle-Income Countries
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This paper studies the relationship between an election dummy variable and several government spending and revenue indicators. It applies the system GMM estimator of Arellano and Bond to a dynamic panel dataset covering 34 low- and middle-income countries over the period 2000–2022. The key estimation results, summarized in Table 4, are interpreted as establishing a causal relationship between election cycles and certain fiscal variables.
In my view, although the manuscript has some potential, it needs substantial shortening and rewriting before achieving publishable quality. Below are just a few illustrative examples of issues that must be addressed before this manuscript can be considered suitable for publication anywhere:
- The quality of English requires significant improvement. For example, line 247: “Compare (8), (9) and (10), (11), it is seen that voter i will choose the incumbent.” Another example is line 716: “This study uses the SYS-GMM dynamic panel approach to avoid cross-sectional regression, as previously described, which can impact potential bias.”
- Occasionally, the language used is not English but Indonesian, e.g., line 274: “FOC untuk masalah maksimisasi (17) adalah.”
- There are subjective assertions that should be avoided. For instance, line 13 states: “Policymakers must be acutely cognizant of the immediate and enduring impacts of the political cycle.” I don’t see how this research establishes this claim. Another example is the statement in line 573: “The data is sourced from reputable intergovernmental and international organizations.” It is preferable to leave judgments regarding reputability to the reader.
- In line 979, the authors assert: “however, there is very little attention given to the sustainability of the electoral cycle on several key fiscal indicators, both aggregate and disaggregate, in middle-income countries.” The meaning of "sustainability of a cycle" is unclear and requires clarification.
- The note under Table 1 reads “Source: authors’ construction.” However, this table only describes variables and their respective sources. suggesting a clearer notation should be used.
- The abstract includes the claim, “The dynamic effect seen in the initial lag of budgetary indicators shows that the growth of that indicator will last.” The phrase “indicator will last” is ambiguous to say the least.
- In line 131, the authors write: “This article is structured proportionately and methodically.” Such evaluative statements should be avoided, as structural quality assessments are best left to readers or reviewers.
- The description of the theoretical framework appears redundant and contains multiple inaccuracies. For instance, the utility function in equation (1) seems deterministic and forward-looking, whereas the objective described in equation (3) involves a conditional expectation of future outcomes. I do not see how these equations add anything to motivating the reduced-form empirical exercise, which constitutes the potentially novel contribution of this paper
Comments on the Quality of English Language
See above
Author Response
Dear
Reviewer 1
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. I find it really helpful for me to revise and improve the manuscript paper. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions or corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files. I am grateful for your continued attention.
Best regards,
Corresponding Author,
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
attached
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Comments on the Quality of English Language
see report
Author Response
Dear
Reviewer 2
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. I find it really helpful for me to revise and improve the manuscript paper. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions or corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files. I am grateful for your continued attention.
Best regards,
Corresponding Author,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Please consult the attached file.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to read and comment your manuscript.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear
Reviewer 3
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. I find it really helpful for me to revise and improve the manuscript paper. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions or corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files. I am grateful for your continued attention.
Best regards,
Corresponding Author,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The presentation of the manuscript has improved relative to the previous version. The overall structure is clearer, and the authors have made efforts to clarify their arguments. However, the revised manuscript would benefit from substantial language editing.
Despite the improvements, the text remains overly verbose given the scope of the contribution. I encourage the authors to make their descriptions more concise and precise. Moreover, the manuscript still contains numerous typos, inaccuracies, and awkward phrasing that impede readability. For example, in line 416, the sentence “Conversely, another scholar demonstrated a differing conclusion. Brender and Drazen (2008) were unable to demonstrate the presence” is grammatically and stylistically problematic. Such issues occur throughout the manuscript and should be addressed systematically.
In addition, the extensive number of crossovers and strike-throughs in Section 2 makes it difficult to determine what content is actually retained in the current version. I recommend that the authors provide a clean version of the manuscript, clearly reflecting the intended final text, to enable a proper assessment of the revisions.
I recommend a thorough revision focused on language clarity, structural coherence, and the preparation of a clean draft before the manuscript can be reconsidered.
Author Response
Manuscript ID: economies-3569089 - Author’s Reply to the Review Report
Dear
Reviewer 1
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. I find it really helpful for me to revise and improve the manuscript paper. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions. I am grateful for your continued attention.
Best regards,
Corresponding Author,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
I think the paper is publishable, although it needs English editing.
Author Response
Manuscript ID: economies-3569089 - Author’s Reply to the Review Report
Dear
Reviewer 2
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. I find it really helpful for me to revise and improve the manuscript paper. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions. I am grateful for your continued attention.
Best regards,
Corresponding Author,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Please, take into account my comments in the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Please, consider that the language needs to be further corrected by someone whose mother tongue is English.
Author Response
Manuscript ID: economies-3569089 - Author’s Reply to the Review Report
Dear
Reviewer 3
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. I find it really helpful for me to revise and improve the manuscript paper. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions. I am grateful for your continued attention.
Best regards,
Corresponding Author,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
I believe the manuscripts has been substantially improved during the two rounds of revision and it warrants publication
