Financing Sustainable Development, Which Factors Can Interfere?: Empirical Evidence from Developing Countries

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please see the attached report.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Sir;
Thank you for your effort and for the time spending to reading our work.
we tried to respond to all of your comments.
we hope these answers are complete
The comments (points) with the answers are the subject of the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is interesting, richly argued, addressing a topical issue and of great importance for the sustainable development of the developing countries.

Methodology and approaches are interesting and comprehensive.

However, I would like to make several suggestions, which may be considered to improve the value of the paper.

Chapter 2 (literature review) is quite extensive, with sometimes excessive, redundant, explanation, often with an informative character, appropriate for the context. In many places the authors discuss general issues (see 2.2.3-2.2.6), which can be easily found in various studies and even in quality student textbooks. We recommend focusing this chapter on studies and articles that are really relevant to the proposed topic and, if the case, inserting background information in the Introduction section.

Methodology – the sample of 24 countries seems, at first sight, interesting and diverse. However, it is not clear what was the selecting criterion.

What are the working hypotheses? How do the authors approach their resolution and how do they interpret the final results, considering the initial objectives?

The results summarized in the Conclusions section are interesting and suggestive (see i.-iii., pages 16-17) but it is recommended to be analysed in relation to the main ideas from the literature, especially when they seriously contradict/challenged the mainstream opinions – see for example Contrary to our a priori expectation, domestic credit to the private sector does not significantly contribute to economic growth but it produces .............

It is also recommended that in the final part of the Conclusions to mention some limitations of the research and/or topics not sufficiently covered here, but which are intended to be deepened in the future, thus suggesting an invitation to an academic debate on these topics.

 

Formal issues

- different fonts, unnecessary spaces between rows/paragraphs/pages. On the other hand, some tables (see Table 2) are crowded into text in an unpolished and difficult to read manner.

 

Thank you for the opportunity to review this article and good luck!

Author Response

Dear Sir;
Thank you for your effort and for the time spending to reading our work.
we tried to respond to all of your comments.
we hope these answers are complete
The comments (points) with the answers are the subject of the attachment.

Best Regards

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Compliments to the authors for the efforts they have made to write the paper. This idea is very interesting due to this issue is very important for society.

The paper has a logical structure and a good readability. The literature review is adequate. The methodology is good, but the authors should better describe the way data is collected. 

Some minor errors:

Line 9 & line 11: The name of the faculty is not correct (should be  Faculty of Economic Sciences and Management of Mahdia - acording to the site of the faculty - http://www.um.rnu.tn/en/institutions/faculties/faculty-of-economic-sciences-and-management-of-mahdia/)

Line 526 ODA, not DOA

Line 637 foreign, with f, not with F

I think Appendix I. 17 specific Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is not necessary.

 

Author Response

Dear Sir;
Thank you for your effort and for the time spending to reading our work.
we tried to respond to all of your comments.
we hope these answers are complete
The comments (points) with the answers are the subject of the attachment.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

In this new version of the manuscript, the authors addressed most of our suggestions and observations, making the paper more suitable for publication.