The Macroeconomic Results of Diligent Resource Revenues Management: The Norwegian Case

Reviewer comments

Reviewer #1

General remark

Response-List of Actions

The article investigates the benefits of not internalizing resource revenues for Norway. The topic developed is of interest and relevance. However, in its current form, the manuscript, in my opinion, lacks sufficient quality for publication in Energies. Publications in peer-reviewed journals (as Energies) are to disseminate knowledge. In this sense, there is still very significant room for improvement in order to be published. For this purpose, the author can see, an interesting paper entitled, 'How to Write a Paper for Successful Publication in an International Peer-Reviewed Journal" (Tress et al., 2014). The author should also review the "Guide for Authors."

Thank you for your comment. The author is advised of the proposed papers and altered the text accordingly. Hopefully, the amendments will cover your specific comments.

Specific remarks

Response-List of Actions

The author has not justified the overall novelty of the research problem (in the abstract, introduction, and conclusions sections).

Thank you for your comment. Please, check lines 8-13, 21-22, 142-153, and 492-498.

Besides the novelty of the research problem, the article uses an extensively employed ARDL approach. I was also unable to see any novelty in the methods of this article.

Thank you for your comment. ARDL modeling is not new, but it is a well-established methodology. Thus, I added the paragraph in lines 206-210 which describes the reasons for applying this methodology. Further, between 193-205, the benefits of the methodology are described, justifying the application.

The discussion section is missing.

Thank you for your comment. The text in lines 534-560 was added with the Norwegian example and policy suggestions (552-560)

The findings are not mostly generalized.

Thank you for your comment. There are generalized results in lines 529-554. Specifically, the generalized suggestions are that

1.      A lot of effort and time is needed.

2.      General political consensus must be achieved.

3.      Several committees must be inaugurated

4.      A stable regulatory framework achieved

5.      A stable environment for all stakeholders must prevail.

The article lacks logical representation and is not well organized. In particular, the abstract and the introduction should be rewritten. Please see the following articles:

'How to Write a Good Abstract for a Scientific Paper or Conference Presentation' (Andrade, 2011)

'How to write a paper for successful publication in an international peer-reviewed journal' (Tress et al., 2014).

Thank you for your comment. The abstract is rewritten under the auspices of the template. Further, the introduction was amended with added text. In case there is something not amended yet, please let me know specifically.

The research title typically does not include a full stop at the end.

Thank you for your comment. The full stop was removed

The citation like in line 189 '[45] [46][47]' can be written as' '[45–47]'.

Thank you for your comment. All citations are renumbered

Abbreviations should be avoided in the abstract.

Thank you for your comment. The abbreviation is in parenthesis now and the full text is normal.

Reviewer #2

General remark

Response-List of Actions

This paper is informative with great potential, providing strong evidence for and how Norway has transformed its oil resource endowments to on-the-ground productive capital while keeping its economy from Dutch Disease. I enjoyed the paper's comments on how different policies have led to a successful natural resources export and reinvesting strategy.

Thank you for your comment. I hope that the amendments will cover your specific comments.

Specific remarks

Response-List of Actions

The main issue with the paper is its novelty, and I am not sure if it provides sufficient insight to make it an original contribution to the literature. After reading it, I do not feel that I have learned something new. It may not be anyone's fault, though. As a successful example of a country avoiding the oil curse, the case of Norway has been very well documented, and it is indeed very difficult to say something new about this case. But maybe I am missing something here. So, I wish the paper included a note explaining how it adds to our knowledge in this area.

Alternatively, the paper could take a humbler approach in presentation. In its current form, the paper provides "additional" support for the effectiveness of the Norwegian government's policies to avoid Dutch Disease. I believe this adjustment could be achieved by changing the paper's title and some modifications to the introduction section.

Thank you for your comment. Please, check lines 8-13, 21-22, 142-153, and 492-498.

The title could be a little more general. The paper seems to cover a broader range of policies than just internalizing oil export revenues. So, the current title is a little misleading.

Thank you for your comment. The title changed from “The benefits of not internalizing resource revenues: The Norwegian case” to “The macroeconomic results of diligent resource revenues management: The Norwegian case”. I hope this will cover your comment.

The last sentence of the abstract mentions the ARDL model. So, it is not clear if the arguments before that are the model's results or not. The abstract should mention that explicitly, and I suggest the model be mentioned before the results are explained.

The abstract was changed from lines 8-13 and 21-22

The English writing of the paper is poor, with numerous typing and grammar errors. An English editor must proofread it.

Thank you for your comment. English proofreading is conducted.

Some sentences are hard to understand, e.g., lines 49-50 or 62-65.

Thank you for your comment. The sentences were altered.

It appears that reference numbers are incorrect (e.g., number 7). I did not check all the numbers, but a few that I checked were incorrect.

Thank you for your comment. All citations are renumbered.

An author's name cited in line 70 is typed incorrectly. The correct author name is van der Ploeg.

Thank you for your comment. The correction is done

The paragraph starting at line 106 is misleading. The concept of real exchange appreciation is presented in a way that appears to be a separate factor from the industrial sector's relative decline. However, these two are tightly coupled and reinforce each other. Some of these dynamic interactions are presented in the following reference:

  + Langarudi, Saeed P., and Michael J. Radzicki. 2021. "Blessing or Burden? Another Look at the Natural Resource Curse." In Feedback Economics: Economic Modeling with System Dynamics, edited by Robert Y. Cavana, Brian C. Dangerfield, Oleg V. Pavlov, Michael J. Radzicki, and I. David Wheat, 311–46. Contemporary Systems Thinking. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67190-7_12.

Thank you for your comment. The text “After all, a useful sign is that of the exchange rate appreciation since Langarudi and Radzicki [26] highlight the reinforced coupling between exchange appreciation and total output” was added.

Line 125: "supply" and "security" of what? I assume those refer to "energy." Make it explicit, please.

Thank you for your comment. The text was altered to “Oil exploration investments are significant for future energy supply and thus energy security.”

Line 166: the paper needs to explain what I(n) means in this context.

Thank you for your comment. The text was altered to “Our data are either stationary at levels or I(0), or stationary at first difference or I(1), but not stationary at second difference or I(2).”

line 179: Spell out ADF (and all other acronyms)

Thank you for your comment. The text was altered to “The Zivot and Andrews [24] test allows for a single structural break to avoid pseudostationarity, while the Elliot et al. [25] is an improvement of the Augmented Dickey Fuller or ADF test”

Line 181: Spell out ARDL (also in the abstract)

Thank you for your comment. Please check lines 12 and 193.

It is better for the paper not to end with a citation and conclude with an original message or statement.

Thank you for your comment. The text “Thus, prompt hydrocarbons’ revenues management may also aid fighting climate change in the long term.”

Limitations of the study and a note on future research should be added.

Thank you for your comment. The text in lines 567-573 was added.

Reviewer comments

Reviewer #1

General remark

Response-List of Actions

The article investigates the benefits of not internalizing resource revenues for Norway. The topic developed is of interest and relevance. However, in its current form, the manuscript, in my opinion, lacks sufficient quality for publication in Energies. Publications in peer-reviewed journals (as Energies) are to disseminate knowledge. In this sense, there is still very significant room for improvement in order to be published. For this purpose, the author can see, an interesting paper entitled, 'How to Write a Paper for Successful Publication in an International Peer-Reviewed Journal" (Tress et al., 2014). The author should also review the "Guide for Authors."

Thank you for your comment. The author is advised of the proposed papers and altered the text accordingly. Hopefully, the amendments will cover your specific comments.

Specific remarks

Response-List of Actions

The author has not justified the overall novelty of the research problem (in the abstract, introduction, and conclusions sections).

Thank you for your comment. Please, check lines 8-13, 21-22, 142-153, and 492-498.

Besides the novelty of the research problem, the article uses an extensively employed ARDL approach. I was also unable to see any novelty in the methods of this article.

Thank you for your comment. ARDL modeling is not new, but it is a well-established methodology. Thus, I added the paragraph in lines 206-210 which describes the reasons for applying this methodology. Further, between 193-205, the benefits of the methodology are described, justifying the application.

The discussion section is missing.

Thank you for your comment. The text in lines 534-560 was added with the Norwegian example and policy suggestions (552-560)

The findings are not mostly generalized.

Thank you for your comment. There are generalized results in lines 529-554. Specifically, the generalized suggestions are that

1.      A lot of effort and time is needed.

2.      General political consensus must be achieved.

3.      Several committees must be inaugurated

4.      A stable regulatory framework achieved

5.      A stable environment for all stakeholders must prevail.

The article lacks logical representation and is not well organized. In particular, the abstract and the introduction should be rewritten. Please see the following articles:

'How to Write a Good Abstract for a Scientific Paper or Conference Presentation' (Andrade, 2011)

'How to write a paper for successful publication in an international peer-reviewed journal' (Tress et al., 2014).

Thank you for your comment. The abstract is rewritten under the auspices of the template. Further, the introduction was amended with added text. In case there is something not amended yet, please let me know specifically.

The research title typically does not include a full stop at the end.

Thank you for your comment. The full stop was removed

The citation like in line 189 '[45] [46][47]' can be written as' '[45–47]'.

Thank you for your comment. All citations are renumbered

Abbreviations should be avoided in the abstract.

Thank you for your comment. The abbreviation is in parenthesis now and the full text is normal.

Reviewer #2

General remark

Response-List of Actions

This paper is informative with great potential, providing strong evidence for and how Norway has transformed its oil resource endowments to on-the-ground productive capital while keeping its economy from Dutch Disease. I enjoyed the paper's comments on how different policies have led to a successful natural resources export and reinvesting strategy.

Thank you for your comment. I hope that the amendments will cover your specific comments.

Specific remarks

Response-List of Actions

The main issue with the paper is its novelty, and I am not sure if it provides sufficient insight to make it an original contribution to the literature. After reading it, I do not feel that I have learned something new. It may not be anyone's fault, though. As a successful example of a country avoiding the oil curse, the case of Norway has been very well documented, and it is indeed very difficult to say something new about this case. But maybe I am missing something here. So, I wish the paper included a note explaining how it adds to our knowledge in this area.

Alternatively, the paper could take a humbler approach in presentation. In its current form, the paper provides "additional" support for the effectiveness of the Norwegian government's policies to avoid Dutch Disease. I believe this adjustment could be achieved by changing the paper's title and some modifications to the introduction section.

Thank you for your comment. Please, check lines 8-13, 21-22, 142-153, and 492-498.

The title could be a little more general. The paper seems to cover a broader range of policies than just internalizing oil export revenues. So, the current title is a little misleading.

Thank you for your comment. The title changed from “The benefits of not internalizing resource revenues: The Norwegian case” to “The macroeconomic results of diligent resource revenues management: The Norwegian case”. I hope this will cover your comment.

The last sentence of the abstract mentions the ARDL model. So, it is not clear if the arguments before that are the model's results or not. The abstract should mention that explicitly, and I suggest the model be mentioned before the results are explained.

The abstract was changed from lines 8-13 and 21-22

The English writing of the paper is poor, with numerous typing and grammar errors. An English editor must proofread it.

Thank you for your comment. English proofreading is conducted.

Some sentences are hard to understand, e.g., lines 49-50 or 62-65.

Thank you for your comment. The sentences were altered.

It appears that reference numbers are incorrect (e.g., number 7). I did not check all the numbers, but a few that I checked were incorrect.

Thank you for your comment. All citations are renumbered.

An author's name cited in line 70 is typed incorrectly. The correct author name is van der Ploeg.

Thank you for your comment. The correction is done

The paragraph starting at line 106 is misleading. The concept of real exchange appreciation is presented in a way that appears to be a separate factor from the industrial sector's relative decline. However, these two are tightly coupled and reinforce each other. Some of these dynamic interactions are presented in the following reference:

  + Langarudi, Saeed P., and Michael J. Radzicki. 2021. "Blessing or Burden? Another Look at the Natural Resource Curse." In Feedback Economics: Economic Modeling with System Dynamics, edited by Robert Y. Cavana, Brian C. Dangerfield, Oleg V. Pavlov, Michael J. Radzicki, and I. David Wheat, 311–46. Contemporary Systems Thinking. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67190-7_12.

Thank you for your comment. The text “After all, a useful sign is that of the exchange rate appreciation since Langarudi and Radzicki [26] highlight the reinforced coupling between exchange appreciation and total output” was added.

Line 125: "supply" and "security" of what? I assume those refer to "energy." Make it explicit, please.

Thank you for your comment. The text was altered to “Oil exploration investments are significant for future energy supply and thus energy security.”

Line 166: the paper needs to explain what I(n) means in this context.

Thank you for your comment. The text was altered to “Our data are either stationary at levels or I(0), or stationary at first difference or I(1), but not stationary at second difference or I(2).”

line 179: Spell out ADF (and all other acronyms)

Thank you for your comment. The text was altered to “The Zivot and Andrews [24] test allows for a single structural break to avoid pseudostationarity, while the Elliot et al. [25] is an improvement of the Augmented Dickey Fuller or ADF test”

Line 181: Spell out ARDL (also in the abstract)

Thank you for your comment. Please check lines 12 and 193.

It is better for the paper not to end with a citation and conclude with an original message or statement.

Thank you for your comment. The text “Thus, prompt hydrocarbons’ revenues management may also aid fighting climate change in the long term.”

Limitations of the study and a note on future research should be added.

Thank you for your comment. The text in lines 567-573 was added.