Effect of Yield Spreads (State Bonds) on Economic Growth Performance in Indonesia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I am a lousy econometrician, so my comments may not be worth anything. I dont see why the granger causality stuff is relevent. If the goal is to find out how levels of varables in one quarter affect other variables in the following quarter, a simple regression should do the job. at one point the authors refer to when the interest rate is short. I think they mean when the interest rate is low. I think the authors could drop a lot of the survey, but i dont feel strongly about this. the paper is well written. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for giving me a chance to revise my paper. Actually, I am not an expert in economics, but my specialist is finance. It is also a major revision. But, I joined research with the first author as the main author, and I did my best as a corresponding author. According to the Granger Causality, my first author help me with answer Because we want to see a reciprocal relationship between the issuance of bonds and macroeconomic performance such as inflation, growth as well.

Regards,

Wahyuni  

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1.     An essential part of the article looks not like a literature review, but like a tutorial. It is informative, but irrelevant to the subject. For instance, section 2.1 simply lists 3 theories to explain the term structure of interest. Which theory do the authors of the paper adhere to?  How does this relate to the Indonesian central bank's policy on government bonds or the economic growth performance in Indonesia? Besides, there is no reference to a primary source, only a secondary source describing these theories.

2.     The points above are true for the sections 2.2–2.8 as well. Sections 2.5–2.6 should be extended (and probably merged) to cover more of Bank Indonesia 's policy. In addition, sections 2.4–2.8 are too short and poorly perceived visually.

3.     Figure 1 looks strange and not visually appealing. What is Inflasi?

4.     There should be literature review on research that used the same or similar methods for the same purposes in application to the other countries. It is also necessary to discuss the quality of the results, taking into account the use of a fairly limited sample.

5.     The obtained VECM equation is poorly readable. It seems unnecessary as there are the estimation results in table 1.

6.     The table 1 should be redesigned. Please, see some literature with econometric estimation results presented.

7.     There are two figures with number 1 in the paper.

8.     Table 3 looks like a screenshot which seems inappropriate.

9.     The Discussion section more looks like a results description without any discussion about the authors' contributions to the literature on the topic, confirmation or refutation of their hypotheses, and comparisons with the results of other authors.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for giving me a chance to revise my paper. Actually, I am not an expert in economics, but my specialist is finance. It is also a major revision. But, I joined research with the first author as the main author, and I did my best as a corresponding author. 

Regards,

Wahyuni  

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have not responded to the majority of my comments, so I will have to duplicate them.

I still think the one-paragraph section is too short (2.2–2.6)

I still do not get what the word "Inflasi" in figure 1 means? Is it an English word? 

The narrative in paragraph 2 is still unclear. It makes sense in point 2.1 to give a brief summary of what factors influence economic growth according to the authors. And why exactly these factors. After that, you can give a brief description of these factors, but do not separate them into different subsections.

Figure 1 looks strange and not visually appealing.

There should be literature review on research that used the same or similar methods for the same purposes in application to the other countries. It is also necessary to discuss the quality of the results, taking into account the use of a fairly limited sample.

The table 1 should be redesigned. Please, see some literature with econometric estimation results presented.

The Discussion section more looks like a results description without any discussion about the authors' contributions to the literature on the topic, confirmation or refutation of their hypotheses, and comparisons with the results of other authors.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

I have been submitted my first revision on January 16. I already revise such as "inflasi" all the revised version with yellow color. If I need to revise for the second round, please let me know. Thank you 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear author, 

please give point-by-point comments on each paragraph of my last review. I do not see any changes in the file you sent me. For example, Figure 1 and Table 1 remain the same.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

I already add some comments to answer your review. Below is the attachment file. Let me know if I still need to revise. Many thanks 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 4

Reviewer 2 Report

.