Influence of Fiscal Policies and Labor Market Characteristics on Sustainable Social Insurance Budgets—Empirical Evidence from Central and Eastern European Countries
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In general, the topic of the manuscript is interesting. The subject is relevant and appropriate for the scientific journal. The purpose is clearly stated. Literature review summarizes research finding without critical evaluation. Authors should write their critical opinion. There is combination of Harvard and Vencouver citation styles. Results are clearly presented but the discussion should be improved. Discussion should contain a comparison of findings with previously published works.
Author Response
Point 1: Literature review summarizes research finding without critical evaluation.
Response 1: We improved this part according to this suggestion.
Point 2: Authors should write their critical opinion.
Response 2: We improved this part according to this suggestion.
Point 3: There is combination of Harvard and Vencouver citation styles.
Response 3: We analyzed the material once more for complying with the formal requirements.
Point 4: Results are clearly presented but the discussion should be improved.
Response 4: We made improvements and additions in the text.
Point 5: Discussion should contain a comparison of findings with previously published works.
Response 5: We improved this part according to this suggestion.
Reviewer 2 Report
This is an interesting paper as fiscal policy and social strategy is a contemporary debate. Despite its merits, it has to be strengthen in three ways before publication.
The introducation is too long and it has to be split in two sections. The first section will be the introduction with some general introductory aspects about the context and most importantly the contribution of this research in our current knowledge. The second section can be named "literature review and hypothesis" where a review on fiscal policies in the EU should be included.
In addition to point 1 above and in order the discussion to be up-to-date, recent resources on fiscal policies during periods of crisis in the EU should be included. For example:
Liargovas, P., Psychalis, M., & Apostolopoulos, N. (2021). Fiscal policy, growth and entrepreneurship in the EMU. European Politics and Society, 1-22.
Apostolopoulos, N., Psychalis, M., Liargovas, P., & Pistikou, V. (2021). Investigating Government lending during an economic crisis: a comparative analysis of four EU countries. European Politics and Society, 1-15.
Ladi, S., & Tsarouhas, D. (2020). EU economic governance and Covid-19: policy learning and windows of opportunity. Journal of European Integration, 42(8), 1041-1056.
O'Donoghue, C., Sologon, D. M., Kyzyma, I., & McHale, J. (2020). Modelling the distributional impact of the COVID‐19 crisis. Fiscal Studies, 41(2), 321-336.
The third aspect needs to be advanced is the policy implications at the concluding remarks. At the concluding remarks, there is a need for some more concrete policy suggestions rising from this study.
Author Response
Point 1: The introduction is too long and it has to be split in two sections. The first section will be the introduction with some general introductory aspects about the context and most importantly the contribution of this research in our current knowledge. The second section can be named "literature review and hypothesis" where a review on fiscal policies in the EU should be included.
Response 1: The introduction was split in two section as suggested. The first part – Introduction, briefly present the research topic – social protection systems and their role and importance to the sustainable development of a country. The second part - Literature review and hypothesis, give the theoretical framework regarding the typologies of social protection systems in Europe, focusing on the Central and Eastern European countries and their issues. The COVID – 19 crisis emphases the role of social protection systems and the need for consolidation of their sustainability.
Point 2: In addition to point 1 above and in order the discussion to be up-to-date, recent resources on fiscal policies during periods of crisis in the EU should be included.
Response 2: We expanded our literature review and we added more references. Now, there are 44 sources analyzed by us. Thank you for the references suggested in the review!
Point 3: The third aspect needs to be advanced is the policy implications at the concluding remarks. At the concluding remarks, there is a need for some more concrete policy suggestions
Response 3: We improved this part according to this suggestion.
Thank you for your support!
Reviewer 3 Report
In my opinion, the article is associated with a number of problems.
- The title of the article does not match the content.
- The abstract is not well structured. It should focus on explanation of the essence of the problem, specify the aim of the article, characterise the methodology used and sum up the findings.
- I also see a problem in the structuring of the Introduction section. I would recommend definition of the issue in the introduction; state why the given issue is topical and important; sum up the findings on the given topic to date; define the aim of the authors of the paper and state how this paper contributes towards resolution of the defined problems.
- Hypotheses must be based on literary research!!!
- Literature review is not well processed. 20 sources are not enough to process a quality scientific article.
- The methodology is not sufficiently explained.
- There is no obvious link between the literature review and the results.
- The findings are not discussed in the context of the work of other authors. Hypothesis evaluation is missing.
- Formal requirements are not respected.
Author Response
Point 1: The title of the article does not match the content.
Response 1: The title encompasses the area of interest - sustainability of social insurance budgets in Central and Eastern European countries; and the research focus – the influence of fiscal policies and labor market characteristics on sustainable social insurance budgets. This influence is owed to the specific functioning principles of social protection systems of these countries: social contribution of employees and employers – revenues of social insurance budgets, are used for the allocation of the provision for the beneficiaries – expenditures of social insurance budgets. Therefore, there are two main factors which affect the revenues of social insurance budgets: fiscal policies regarding the social contribution rate and labor market features as employment, unemployment, human capital.
We made improvements and additions in the text so that the match between the title and the content will be better pointed out.
Point 2: The abstract is not well structured. It should focus on explanation of the essence of the problem, specify the aim of the article, characterize the methodology used and sum up the findings.
Response 2: The abstract was restructured according to the suggestions.
Point 3: I also see a problem in the structuring of the Introduction section. I would recommend definition of the issue in the introduction; state why the given issue is topical and important; sum up the findings on the given topic to date; define the aim of the authors of the paper and state how this paper contributes towards resolution of the defined problems.
Response 3: The Introduction section was structured according to the suggestions. We also considered other reviewers” recommendations.
Point 4: Hypotheses must be based on literary research!!!
Response 4: We connected the hypotheses to the literature research.
Point 5: Literature review is not well processed. 20 sources are not enough to process a quality scientific article.
Response 5: We expanded our literature review and we added more references. Now, there are 44 sources analyzed by us.
Point 6: The methodology is not sufficiently explained.
Response 6: We improved this part according to this suggestion.
Point 7: There is no obvious link between the literature review and the results.
Response 7: We emphasized better the connection.
Point 8: The findings are not discussed in the context of the work of other authors.
Response 8: We improved the paper according to this suggestion.
Hypothesis evaluation is missing.
Response 9: We included the hypothesis evaluation in the text.
Point 10: Formal requirements are not respected.
Response 10: We analyzed the material once more for complying with the formal requirements.
Thank you for your support!
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for incorporating my comments.
Point 1: I accept the authors' explanations.
Point 2: I accept the modified version of the abstract.
Point 3: The "Introduction" section has been significantly redesigned. Please complete the aim of the study.
Point 4: Consider the relationship between source 27 and hypothesis H1, which is based on it. Your study is based on the opposite situation! I recommend substantiating the H1 hypothesis with other sources (at least 2 sources). Fill in what the H2 hypothesis is based on (together with at least 2 sources).
Point 5: I can state that the literature review has been appropriately developed. However, I do not recommend stating the aim of the study in the "Literature Review" section (r. 140-142).
Point 6: I accept the amended version of the methodology. Please add resources to the figures.
Point 7: The comment was adequately incorporated.
Point 8: Both of my comments have been adequately incorporated.
Point 9: The references are still not created in accordance with the guidelines.
Author Response
Dear reviever,
We kindly thank you for helping us improve our material. Here are the answers to the points:
Point 1: I accept the authors' explanations.
Response 1: NA
Point 2: I accept the modified version of the abstract.
Response 2: NA
Point 3: The "Introduction" section has been significantly redesigned. Please complete the aim of the study.
Response 3: We completed the aim of the study.
Point 4: Consider the relationship between source 27 and hypothesis H1, which is based on it. Your study is based on the opposite situation! I recommend substantiating the H1 hypothesis with other sources (at least 2 sources). Fill in what the H2 hypothesis is based on (together with at least 2 sources).
Response 4: The H1 hypothesis started from source 27 which emphasis the idea that the COVID -19 pandemics increased unemployment. Given that social protection systems are financed by social contribution of employees, we assumed that an increased unemployment rate will decrease the revenues of social insurance budget and on the opposite, the increased employment rate will increase the revenues of social insurance budget. The H2 hypothesis start from the premise that quality of human capital can determine the revenues of social insurance budget. We included other sources to sustain our assumptions and we made changes in the text to ensure the connection.
Point 5: I can state that the literature review has been appropriately developed. However, I do not recommend stating the aim of the study in the "Literature Review" section (r. 140-142).
Response 5: We’ve made sure that the aim is not included in the Literature Review
Point 6: I accept the amended version of the methodology. Please add resources to the figures.
Response 6: We added the resources as recommended.
Point 7: The comment was adequately incorporated.
Response 7: NA
Point 8: Both of my comments have been adequately incorporated.
Response 8: NA
Point 9: The references are still not created in accordance with the guidelines.
Response 9: We made the necessary changes in order to respect the template requirements.
Warm regards,
The authors
