Ease of Doing Business in Local Government: Push and Pull Factors for Business Investment in Selected South African Municipalities
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article deals with an interesting topic. However, I have comments on its content processing.
Information from research in other European countries should also appear in the literature review - how local self-government supports or does not support entrepreneurship. Despite the fact that the article focuses on only one country.
It is necessary to explain some of the abbreviations (for instance - IDP, NDP, SDBIP, SMME etc.), that are used in the article, but nowhere explain what they are means.
Row 505 - The table has no label and no name
Push and pull factors - they were chosen by the respondents themselves, or they had a choice of several options within the questionnaire?
How these factors were identified should also appear in the methodology.
Chapter 5 discussion - line 543 - the title does not correspond to the content - this is a summary of the research and a proposal for better enterprise environment and not a discussion.
Finally, the limits of research should also appear in the conclusion.
Author Response
Good morning
Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript and your valuable inputs to conduct the corrections.
See attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors aim to analyze the ease with which business can be done in South Africa and identify the factors that influence investment. They can consider the following aspects:
- Keywords need to be revised (too long phrases are used; for example, they can be written separately - municipalites; South Africa; economic development);
- In the introduction should be presented (given the lack of Literature review section and reporting to various studies in section 2) several papers that analyzed the issue addressed by the authors; also, at the end of this section, the structure of the paper must be highlighted;
- Section 2 should be renamed (the theoretical framework should highlight a description of the applied research methods, the sampling technique, the tool used, the method of administering the questionnaire, etc .; the authors make a brief description in Section 3; consequently, it would be correct to rename section 2);
- it is necessary to verify the weights highlighted in graph 1 and graph 4; in addition, it would be relevant to highlight the weights on Charts 6 and 7;
- The discussion part must be much developed in order to highlight the novelty brought by the research presented in the paper in relation to other research in the field. In this form it is not possible to identify the novelty of research compared to previous research;
- Conclusions should clearly include the limits of research and future research directions.
Author Response
Good morning
Thank your for the opportunity to review the manuscript and your valuable input.
See annexure
Kind regards
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
In its current form, the article is suitable for publication.
Author Response
Good morning
Language edited by MDPI language editor as recommended.
Thank you so much.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors largely responded to the comments made.
However, I consider that I can recheck Charts 1 and 4 (the sum of the weights for the highlighted factors is 101% or 98%; it should be 100%).
The suggestion in point 3 referred to the fact that the authors presented a general framework in the content of Section 2, but the name of the section suggests what was already included in section 3. It is now correct.
The paper can be published after re-verifying the aspects mentioned above.
Author Response
Good morning
Corrections as suggested effected
Editing conducted by MDPI - editors as suggested.
Thank you so much - highly appreciated
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
