EU Accession, Institutional Change, Growth, and Human Capital

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic is interesting, and the author has done a great job in realizing the subject. The paper seems interesting and well-motivated. However, you can improve it by considering the following:

1. The Keywords need to be revisited: Keywords are important words/concepts found in your article particularly in objectives, research questions or hypothesis. A good way to pull keywords from your article is to choose the most important five/six nouns. The keywords in this study are unnecessarily too many in number. Please select the most important five/six nouns.!
2. There should be a cant mention of the variables that predisposes an economy outside EU that its institutional quality improved as a result of regional economic integration, better still a slight discussion of nations and regions that their economic and social conditions improved via modifying their regional economic integration, and quality of human capital, will enhance clarity of purpose. 
3. The theory is adequate as well as the method. However, I suggest inclusion of human capital theories in the literature for completeness.  I also want to suggest that there should be a link among the statement of the problem, objective of the study, methodology, theory and findings of the study.
4. Statistical reporting was adequately reported. However, the study still needs to do more in comparing the findings of this study to previous studies, so as to know the major contributions to the body of knowledge by this study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I am sending a review report containing suggestions that I believe are appropriate to enhance the quality of the research and to meet scientific writing standards. I kindly request that you address each item in the report in the sequential numbering provided in the document.

Your response can include the revised excerpt or an indication of the line numbers associated with the specific comment. Alternatively, please provide a proper justification for sections you believe should not be altered including citations.

Best regards.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper analyzes how EU accession-driven institutional changes affect growth in ex-socialist countries, with the use of human capital efficiency as a key growth driver. While I find the paper's objective clearly stated, I would like to see a more well-structured introduction section, and a smoother writing, to enhance clarity and engagement.

The literature review covers several foundational works; however, the link between the cited theories and the paper’s hypotheses could be enlarged. The authors could incorporate the following relevant studies:

• Baker et al. (2022), "How Much Should We Trust Staggered Difference-in-Differences Estimates?"

• Callaway & Sant’Anna (2021), "Difference-in-Differences with Multiple Time Periods and an Application on the Minimum Wage and Employment"

• Kechagia and Kyriazi (2021), "Structural Funds and Regional Economic Growth: The Greek Experience"

In the methodology section, the difference-in-differences (DID) approach is appropriate for analyzing multi-country panel data. However, given the staggered nature of EU accession across countries, the authors should consider using more recent DID estimators, for example the proposed approach by Callaway and Sant’Anna(2021)

In the results section, in order to strength the quality of the paper, the authors could discuss mechanisms connecting EU norms to human capital efficiency, like EU funding (for example structural funds), or policy alignment with EU labor market demands in facilitating improvements in human capital.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This paper analyzes how EU accession-driven institutional changes affect growth in ex-socialist countries, with the use of human capital efficiency as a key growth driver. While I find the paper's objective clearly stated, I would like to see a more well-structured introduction section, and a smoother writing, to enhance clarity and engagement.

The literature review covers several foundational works; however, the link between the cited theories and the paper’s hypotheses could be enlarged. The authors could incorporate the following relevant studies:

• Baker et al. (2022), "How Much Should We Trust Staggered Difference-in-Differences Estimates?"

• Callaway & Sant’Anna (2021), "Difference-in-Differences with Multiple Time Periods and an Application on the Minimum Wage and Employment"

• Kechagia and Kyriazi (2021), "Structural Funds and Regional Economic Growth: The Greek Experience"

In the methodology section, the difference-in-differences (DID) approach is appropriate for analyzing multi-country panel data. However, given the staggered nature of EU accession across countries, the authors should consider using more recent DID estimators, for example the proposed approach by Callaway and Sant’Anna(2021)

In the results section, in order to strength the quality of the paper, the authors could discuss mechanisms connecting EU norms to human capital efficiency, like EU funding (for example structural funds), or policy alignment with EU labor market demands in facilitating improvements in human capital.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to review this interesting manuscript. In my opinion, the authors should revise the manuscript, since it is not suitable for publication in a high-quality journal in its present form.

Firstly, there is no single reference in the Introduction section, which is considered a type of plagiarism.

Secondly, the authors should justify and support their arguments. For instance, "Among the three methods, DID is likely the most frequently applied", etc. There are several missing references in the text in all sections. 

Thirdly, the conclusion should not start with the limitations. They could be presented in the Discussion. The Discussion section should be enriched. 

Finally, the authors should clearly present the reasons for choosing the empirical model and the variables. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thank the authors for addressing the topics raised by the reviewers and for reflecting on ways to improve the article. Based on the comment numbers from the previous round, I would like to highlight just two additional points:

Comments 3 and 4: The authors begin with a literature review (lines 71–90), then present the research objective and motivation (lines 91–161), and subsequently return to the literature review (lines 162–194). I recommend that the authors consolidate the theoretical and empirical review into a single section, followed by the presentation of the research problem, and finally the objective, including data sources and methodology. This will prevent the literature review from being split into two parts.

Comment 5: Opposing perspectives may stem from methodological, theoretical, or even indicator-related differences—factors that stimulate debate in the literature. Highlighting these perspectives not only helps justify your research but also emphasizes its main contributions to the literature, that is, the specific gap your study aims to fill.

Best regards.

Author Response

Thank you very much for accepting my responses to 20 of your Round 1 comments and suggestions. I am giving my responses on the remaining three of your Round 1 comments and suggestions as you have rephrased below.  (The other changes that you will find in the further revised manuscript are in response to comments by the other reviewers and by the academic editor).

Comments 3 and 4 (Numbers from Round 1): The authors begin with a literature review (lines 71–90), then present the research objective and motivation (lines 91–161), and subsequently return to the literature review (lines 162–194). I recommend that the authors consolidate the theoretical and empirical review into a single section, followed by the presentation of the research problem, and finally the objective, including data sources and methodology. This will prevent the literature review from being split into two parts.

Response: The reviewer has misconstrued a part of introduction as literature Review.  Literature review did not start on line 71 (of the manuscript I uploaded on May 17).  It started in its Section 2, line 111.  (In lines 71-90, I only mentioned the various sociological determinants of institutions as revealed by literature review in Section 2 to motivate the reader).  Literature review is not split into two parts.  It is one single whole Section from line 111 to line 234 consolidating both theoretical and empirical works.  To clarify this point, I have replaced “below” by “in Section 2” highlighted in blue on line 69.

Comment 5 From Round 1 (Number from Round 1): Opposing perspectives may stem from methodological, theoretical, or even indicator-related differences—factors that stimulate debate in the literature. Highlighting these perspectives not only helps justify your research but also emphasizes its main contributions to the literature, that is, the specific gap your study aims to fill.

Response: I believe my paper sufficiently justifies the research, emphasizes its main contributions to literature, and the specific gaps it aims to fill.  Neither any of the other three reviewers nor the academic editor has raised this question.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have revised the manuscript according to the comments and have provided a detailed response letter explaining what they changed.

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for accepting my responses to your Round 1 comments and suggestions.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In my opinion, the manuscript could not be published in the journal in its present form. The authors should revise the manuscript, considering that there are several spelling and grammar errors. The limitations of the research, as presented by the authors, prove that there are various issues in the methodology (e.g. several institutional changes are not examined, etc.).  Finally, as I already mentioned in the previous round of review, the policy implications and the limitations should be clearly presented. On the contrary, the authors only briefly presented 2 policy implications and some of the research limitations.  

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are several grammar and spelling problems. 

Author Response

I regret the Reviewer does not acknowledge that I have fully addressed the four comments and suggestions they had made in the first round.  The said reviewer’s comments in the second round are new and not made in the first-round comments and suggestions.  I am stating the Reviewer’s second-round comments and my responses below. (The other changes in the further revised manuscript are in response to comments by the other reviewers and by the academic editor).

Comment: In my opinion, the manuscript could not be published in the journal in its present form. The authors should revise the manuscript, considering that there are several spelling and grammar errors. Response: There were no spelling or grammatical errors in the version I uploaded on May 17.  There are none in the current further revised version. 

Comment: The limitations of the research, as presented by the authors, prove that there are various issues in the methodology (e.g. several institutional changes are not examined, etc.).  Response: Limitations to which Reviewer 4 alludes are stated in lines 557 to 567.  They conclude “The only consolation is that the estimated ATET then most likely understates the true effect.”  That is, the limitations do not negate or undermine the result.   

Comment: Finally, as I already mentioned in the previous round of review, the policy implications and the limitations should be clearly presented. On the contrary, the authors only briefly presented 2 policy implications and some of the research imitations.   

Response: None of the first-round comments by this reviewer stated that either the stated policy implications or the limitations were inadequate.  Reviewer 4 only asked (in first-round Comments 3) to present limitations not in conclusions but in the discussion.  Accordingly, I moved the limitations earlier stated in Conclusions to the discussion part of Sub-Section 5.1, last paragraph. 

I have stated additional limitations and policy implications in Section 6, lines 649-654 and 685-691 and Section 7, lines 700-707.  I have highlighted in green wherever I have stated additional policy implications or limitations or changed their placement from the original version.

Round 3

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Unfortunately, the authors did not pay much of attention in my previous review; I only received their response, but there are still several issues in the manuscript. For instance,

1)"Mauro (1995), Knack and Keefer (1997) and Hall and Jones (1999) were among the first to empirically establish relationship between institutions and growth", what does this argument provide? To publish in a high quality journal, it is crucial to compare results of previous studies. 

2) "Inter-country economic inequality is often ascribed to differences in institutions". This argument should be supported. 

3) "Human capital goes beyond credentials to training and education that is useful for 
production. Its theories either emphasize individual choice of education with minimal 
state role or recognize the role of state in it." References are missing.

etc

4) There are still several spelling mistakes. I understand that English is not the native language of the authors, but they should make efforts to improve the quality of these errors. Their response letter proves that they are unwilling to follow the suggestions made in the previous round of review. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 4, Round 3 Comments

It is unfortunate that Reviewer 4 misrepresents that I “did not pay much of attention in (sic) my (the reviewer’s) previous review.”   I paid full attention – responding to each sentence of the review with a detailed response.  See below.  “The still several issues in the manuscript” alleged by the reviewer are all new – except for again misrepresenting that the manuscript contains “several spelling mistakes.”  I have carefully considered the reviewer’s Round 3 comments, and I am giving my responses below:

Comment 1: "Mauro (1995), Knack and Keefer (1997) and Hall and Jones (1999) were among the first to empirically establish relationship between institutions and growth", what does this argument provide? To publish in a high quality journal, it is crucial to compare results of previous studies. 

Response 1: The statement quoted by the reviewer is my very broad statement in Introduction to motivate general interest in the topic.  The paper’s objective is much narrower: to examine the role of institutions in growth in the context of ex-socialist countries of Europe.  Lines 111-112.  More specifically, it is to examine “the effects of institutional integration cum improvement and of initial institutions on the growth of 10 ex-socialist countries that joined the EU in mid-2000’s.”  Lines 230-232.  The results of the paper are compared very thoroughly to earlier studies on that topic.  Lines 232-239 and Table 4 (pages 12 and 13).

Comment 2: "Inter-country economic inequality is often ascribed to differences in institutions". This argument should be supported. 

Response 2: Again, the statement quoted by the reviewer is from the Introduction.  It is fully supported.  See highlighted lines 36-41.

Comment 3: "Human capital goes beyond credentials to training and education that is useful for 
production. Its theories either emphasize individual choice of education with minimal 
state role or recognize the role of state in it." References are missing. etc. 

Response 3: References are provided.  See Becker (1962) and Schiltz (1960) cited in the same paragraph.

Comment 4: There are still several spelling mistakes. I understand that English is not the native language of the authors, but they should make efforts to improve the quality of these errors. Response 4: There are no spelling errors. Word highlights any words that it thinks are misspelt by underlining them in red.   The only words underlined in red by Word are some last names of authors that it does not recognize as names.  I have spelt all names of authors correctly. 

Comment 4 (contd.): Their response letter proves that they are unwilling to follow the suggestions made in the previous round of review. 

Response 4 (contd.): This remark is not fair.  I have followed all the suggestions made by the Reviewer in the previous two rounds and made changes – especially in Round 1.  It is the Reviewer who has not acknowledged my changes and responses.  See the opening sentences of my Response to Round 2 Comments (These read: “I regret the Reviewer does not acknowledge that I have fully addressed the four comments and suggestions they had made in the first round.  The said reviewer’s comments in the second round are new and not made in the first-round comments and suggestions”) and the opening sentences above of my Response to Round 3 Comments (These read: “It is unfortunate that the reviewer misrepresents that I “did not pay much of attention in (sic) my (the reviewer’s) previous review.”   I paid full attention – responding to each sentence of the review with a detailed response).  The Reviewer, by making new comments each time, implicitly admits that I have followed the earlier suggestions and they cannot find any fault in my previous responses and changes. 

Reviewer 4, Round 2 Comments

In my opinion, the manuscript could not be published in the journal in its present form. The authors should revise the manuscript, considering that there are several spelling and grammar errors. The limitations of the research, as presented by the authors, prove that there are various issues in the methodology (e.g. several institutional changes are not examined, etc.).  Finally, as I already mentioned in the previous round of review, the policy implications and the limitations should be clearly presented. On the contrary, the authors only briefly presented 2 policy implications and some of the research limitations.  

P.S. Response to Reviewer 4, Round 2 Comments

I regret the Reviewer does not acknowledge that I have fully addressed the four comments and suggestions they had made in the first round.  The said reviewer’s comments in the second round are new and not made in the first-round comments and suggestions.  I am stating the Reviewer’s second-round comments and my responses below. (The other changes in the further revised manuscript are in response to comments by the other reviewers and by the academic editor).

Comment: In my opinion, the manuscript could not be published in the journal in its present form. The authors should revise the manuscript, considering that there are several spelling and grammar errors. Response: There were no spelling or grammatical errors in the version I uploaded on May 17.  There are none in the current further revised version. 

Comment: The limitations of the research, as presented by the authors, prove that there are various issues in the methodology (e.g. several institutional changes are not examined, etc.).  Response: Limitations to which Reviewer 4 alludes are stated in lines 557 to 567.  They conclude “The only consolation is that the estimated ATET then most likely understates the true effect.”  That is, the limitations do not negate or undermine the result.   

Comment: Finally, as I already mentioned in the previous round of review, the policy implications and the limitations should be clearly presented. On the contrary, the authors only briefly presented 2 policy implications and some of the research imitations.   

Response: None of the first-round comments by this reviewer stated that either the stated policy implications or the limitations were inadequate.  Reviewer 4 only asked (in first-round Comments 3) to present limitations not in conclusions but in the discussion.  Accordingly, I moved the limitations earlier stated in Conclusions to the discussion part of Sub-Section 5.1, last paragraph. 

I have stated additional limitations and policy implications in Section 6, lines 649-654 and 685-691 and Section 7, lines 700-707.  I have highlighted in green wherever I have stated additional policy implications or limitations or changed their placement from the original version.