Bearing the Scars: Access to Growth and the Age of Knowledge
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is good and very well documented. The theme of the present paper is relevant in the actual international and European situation. The hypothesis is that economic growth leads to an increase of welfare, but also to an increase of inequity for certain social categories. Throughout the paper, through a pertinent analysis of the published papers, but also through their own observations, the authors manage to demonstrate that not all social categories have the benefits of economic growth.
A strong point is the presentation of the evolution of the English economy in terms of indicators such as inequality, life expectancy and health outcomes.
However, even if it is the third work in a series of four, as the authors mention, this work should also have a methodology.
- The methodology is not mentioned at all.
- We are agree that the paper is theoretical one, but it would be good to present more examples and data in order to support the ideas from each section and the future conclusions.
Ex. Graphic evolutions of GDP, productivity and graphical evolutions of welfare - section 2.1 etc
3.The references are not all cited in the text.
The cited references are current (mostly within the last 5 years).
The following authors in the bibliography are not cited in the text, or are quoted in other sections. I recommend reviewing the bibliography, even removing the bibliography by sections, if it is easier for authors:
Section 2
Neil Lee and Paul Sissons – section 4
Rae, A., Hamilton, R., Crisp, R. and Powell, R
Joseph Rowntree – the paper is mentioned in the text, but not in the bibliography
Section 3
Bibby, J. (2017) How Do Our Education and Skills Influence Our Health?, The Health Foundation.
Burch, P. B. M. (2018) NHS Funding’s North-South Divide: Why the
‘Sicker’ North Gets Less Money, The Conversation, 21 March.
Section 4
Kontopantelis, E., Buchan, I., Webb, R. T., Ashcroft, D. M., Mamas, M. A. and Doran, T. (2018) Disparities in Mortality Among 25–44-year–olds in England: A Longitudinal, Population-Based Study, The Lancet Public Health, 3(12), e567–e575
Walsh, D., Bendel, N., Jones, R. and Hanlon, P. (2010) It’s Not “Just Deprivation”: Why Do Equally Deprived UK Cities Experience Different Health Outcomes?, Public Health, 124(9), 487–495. Este in sectiunea 2 nu 4
Section 5
Borgo, M. D., Goodridge, P., Haskel, J. and Pesole, A. (2013) Produc- tivity and Growth in UK Industries: An Intangible Investment Approach, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 75(6), 806–834.
Hutton, G., Rhodes, C. and Ward, M. (2021) Research & Development Spending, House of Commons Library, Briefing Paper No. SN04223.
Fauth, B. (2009) ‘Good Work’ in the Knowledge Economy: Evidence from Two Studies, Centre for Local Economic Strategies, Issue 83.
Mangabeira Unger, R., Stanley, I, Gabriel, M. and Mulgan, G. (2019) Imagination Unleashed: Democratising the Knowledge Economy, Nesta Re- port, March.
Stanley, I. and Gabriel, M. (2019) A Knowledge Economy that Works For
All, Nesta Report, 18 March.
Section 6
Bolton, P. (2021) Higher Education Student Numbers, House of Commons Library, Research Briefing, 26 February.
4. The authors' conclusions need to be revised by mentioning government policies that could have produced structural changes needed for long-term productivity.
Author Response
In response to the comments and suggestions, we made quite a number of changes to the manuscript. Major changes are to in-text references, bibliography, added conclusion, comments on methodology. The missing reference is added.
We discussed what other graphs could be added (and that are not already in the three companion papers) and came up empty. We decided that further figures will not help the reader - and the paper is already quite long.
The manuscript is now labelled "Essay".
Reviewer 2 Report
To my view the authors have done a serious job of summarizing and giving a critical-balanced survey of the research on the topic which can be very helpful to general historians and others in itself and as an introduction.
Clearly, it is not a classical research article. Perhaps we could label it "tutorial" - this seems to be the nearest label available in the MDPI-repetoire of labels (there are about 40 of them, you can check them at the head line of "histories"-website under "Article Types"). The appearance on the screen is not really impacted by such a label, but the label helps to guide expectations of readers and can be mentioned in cases of discussion. Or would another label be more appropriate?
Author Response
We labelled the manuscript an "essay" which seems to work best. Thanks for the suggestion! In response to the other reviewer, we made quite a number of changes to in-text citation and added a conclusion.
