Are Central Government Rules Okay? Assessing the Hidden Costs of Centralised Discipline for Municipal Borrowing

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review for Sustainability (1003121)

Title:  Central Government rules, okay? Assessing the 2 hidden costs of centralised discipline for municipal 3 borrowing

Comments to the Author

The purpose of this paper is to analyze whether the Centralised Discipline and Control Model generates more cost for LGs by comparing the use of bonds vs the borrowing from banks in a Italian sample.

I consider that the article is well structured and ‘attracts’ the public, the objective of the paper can be considered fulfill. However, additional refinement is needed.

 

First Section. Authors need to be more specific in this section and focus on the contribution of the study. The contribution should show why your paper is interesting.

Theoretical Section. This section is well written and includes theories to explain the paper. Authors could include a table with the 4 models described in the section 2 to facilitate the reading and summarize ideas.

Sample and methodoly Sections. Sample is appropriate for the purpose of the paper. More information about the selection of LGs and collection of information is required.

Could be the methodology used considered similar to the method Delphi?

Line 165: Authors could explain the advantages of the emissions in fixed rate, as they are the majority in the stock.

In line 166, do you mean stock exchange?

Line 176: What kind of derivatives? Reader needs more explanation to understand the question posed with these instruments that have caused so many problems in banking entities, for example in Monte dei Paschi di Siena.

Line 212: Why has the cost been increased by 0.4282%?

 

Results Section. The study contains interesting results.

Line 263: In the Figure 1, what is reflected in axis X?

Line 273: more explanation about the grey line is necessary. Is 0.4282 an average?

Discussion Section. There is a interesting conclusion (bonds must be alienate with assets) and authors should deepen in this issue.

More discussion can be introduced about other European countries (not only Spain) to understand the singularity of Italy.

 

Others:

• Please, check grammar and spelling. For instance, correct edge (page 8)
• More recent references are need

 

In sum, the paper is interesting and the methodology, although basic, is valid and responds to the aim of the paper.

 

Author Response

Responses have been provided in the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

  There is no specific purpose of the article. No specific research methodology, the description is very chaotic. No explicit results or constructive conclusions.

Author Response

Responses have been provided in the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

The topic discussed in the manuscript is interesting and current. Manuscript is well written.

I propose a few changes:
1. Put a hypothesis / hypotheses in the introduction.
2. There was no information about the methods of analysis used in other studies.
3. I propose to add more conclusions. Section 6 may be entitled "discussion and conclusions".
4. Do you perceive any limitations of the conducted research?
5. What could be the recommendations, future research?

Reviewer

Author Response

Responses have been provided in the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The text of the article has been revised in line with the reviewers' recommendations.