Fresh Insight through a Keynesian Theory Approach to Investigate the Economic Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Pakistan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The abstract presents the purpose of the paper. However, the research methods deployed and the added value brought by the present paper should be emphasized.

References should be presented in a consistent way (see line 63, 121 etc).

Some statistics (e.g. Lines 73- 97, line 233 etc.) need to be updated (some predictions at that time are now the past).

Some formulation styles do not meet the academic criteria: e.g. see lines 346-349, line 356 etc.

In my opinion the present paper does not represent the output of a scientific research process. There are some interesting facts and numbers presented in the text, but there is no methodology and scientific result of the study. The research questions are formulated just at the end of the paper and not properly addressed.

Author Response

Summary of the major revision being made

First, we thank the reviewers and the editor/associate editor for their valuable suggestions. We have revised the manuscript according to the suggestions of reviewers. The grammar has been checked thoroughly native English writer. Important discussions/explanations as suggested have been made in the revised manuscript. Similarly, almost all the relevant and important references are also being included.

Changed Title as Fresh Insight through Keynesian Theory Approach to Investigate the Economic Impact of Covid-19 Pandemic in Pakistan.

Reviewer. 1

Point:

The abstract presents the purpose of the paper. However, the research methods deployed and the added value brought by the present paper should be emphasized.

Response: Dear reviewer, this issue has been addressed in the revised manuscript.

Point:

References should be presented in a consistent way (see line 63, 121 etc.).

Response: Dear reviewer, we are really thankful and appreciate your valuable comments. As per your suggestion, references are presented in a consistent way and highlight with yellow color.

Point:

Some statistics (e.g. Lines 73- 97, line 233 etc.) need to be updated (some predictions at that time are now the past).

Response: Dear reviewer, we are thankful to your valuable comment and your kind favor. Those articles which you shared, really helpful for us.. As per your suggestion, we have updated statistics. You can also check in the revised manuscript for further details.

Point:

Some formulation styles do not meet the academic criteria: e.g. see lines 346-349, line 356 etc.

Response: Dear reviewer, this issue has been addressed in the revised manuscript.

Point:

In my opinion the present paper does not represent the output of a scientific research process. There are some interesting facts and numbers presented in the text, but there is no methodology and scientific result of the study. The research questions are formulated just at the end of the paper and not properly addressed.

Response: Dear reviewer, we are thankful to your valuable comment and your kind favor. As per suggestion, Authors revised the methodology of this study and to create the link between the variables with latest approaches that display the kind of outcomes. You can check in the revised manuscript for further details, which is highlighted with yellow color.

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic is trendy, as it deals with the pandemic situation and tries to connect the current situation with economic theories.

However, the title doesn't reflect the content exactly. I recommend indicating Pakistan in the title as in fact, it is going about it.

The abstract looks like a part of the Introduction, isn't compact, comprehensive enough. For example, the methodology used should be indicated in the abstract.

In the introduction I miss the research goals.

The methodology of the study is not described.

There is no literature review in the paper.

The graphs, diagrams are inserted as pictures, not made/processed (because - in the results and discussion chapter - these are inserted from the literature and aren't based on own calculations).

Author Response

Changed Title as 

Fresh Insight through Keynesian Theory Approach to Investigate the Economic Impact of Covid-19 Pandemic in Pakistan.

Reviewer .2

Point:

The topic is trendy, as it deals with the pandemic situation and tries to connect the current situation with economic theories.

Response: Dear reviewer, thank you so much for yours valuable comments. Authors tries to seek the current situation with the support of Keynesian theory.

Point:

However, the title doesn't reflect the content exactly. I recommend indicating Pakistan in the title as in fact, it is going about it.

Response: Dear reviewer, this issue has been addressed in the revised manuscript.

Point:

The abstract looks like a part of the Introduction, isn't compact, comprehensive enough. For example, the methodology used should be indicated in the abstract.

Response: Dear Reviewer, Thank you so much to highlight this point because without this part, the worth of our paper would not be what it should be. So as per your suggestion, we separately added the paragraph of methodology.

Point:

In the introduction I miss the research goals.

Response: Dear reviewer, this issue has been addressed in the revised manuscript.

Point:

The methodology of the study is not described.

Response: It is a review paper. So, the aim of this paper is being to produced qualitative analysis and conclusion under Keynesian theory because according to my knowledge there is no paper that covered this substantive area of research in this way.

Point:

There is no literature review in the paper.

Response: Dear reviewer, this issue has been addressed in the revised manuscript.

Point:

The graphs, diagrams are inserted as pictures, not made/processed (because - in the results and discussion chapter - these are inserted from the literature and aren't based on own calculations).

Response: Dear reviewer, this issue has been addressed in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Abstract: It would be clearer to insert “exploratory” study on line 24. Would suggest updating to currency Dollars on line 30.  Also, would suggest another word than “victimized” on line 33.

Introduction/Theoretical Background/Methodology:  Well written introduction and theoretical background. Nice separation/transition into 3. Keynesian Theory description and potential global economic recession. Line 141 subject line should extend to next page. There are several “widow and orphan lines” throughout the paper. Line 349 and 356; define Keynesian coined term of “animal spirits” as it is not well known. Line 416 please define “helicopter money”.  Line 438; please define the “strategy rate” relative to Pakistan.  There are non-economists that will be reading this publication.

The first dashboard figure is very good/illustrative.  The figures all need better labels for X,Y axis (rather than using the * footnote under figures). Line 468, use word “money injection”. Lines 522-532 could be updated to more current conditions. Line 580 “assisted to reduce”.

Results and Conclusions: Future study recommendations should match with the introduction in the paper; discuss health and travel & tourism sectors on lines 631-635.

Remove sectors “sports and education” (line 645) as it wasn’t described earlier in the paper. Where is Table 1 (line 658)?

Overall comments: No hypotheses provided and no economic analysis in this paper. The paper is a good discussion of the policy implications of COVID-19, based primarily from a Keynesian approach. It was a pleasure to read as it is well written (without spelling and grammatical issues).  

Author Response

The title has been changed as Fresh Insight through Keynesian Theory Approach to Investigate the Economic Impact of Covid-19 Pandemic in Pakistan.

Reviewer.3

Point:

Abstract: It would be clearer to insert “exploratory” study on line 24. Would suggest updating to currency Dollars on line 30.  Also, would suggest another word than “victimized” on line 33.

Response: Dear reviewer, we are thankful and appreciate your valuable comments. As per your suggestion, currency is updated in dollar form and word suggestion also revised in manuscript that is highlighted with yellow color.

Point:

Introduction/Theoretical Background/Methodology:  Well written introduction and theoretical background. Nice separation/transition into 3. Keynesian Theory description and potential global economic recession. Line 141 subject line should extend to next page. There are several “widow and orphan lines” throughout the paper. Line 349 and 356; define Keynesian coined term of “animal spirits” as it is not well known. Line 416 please define “helicopter money”.  Line 438; please define the “strategy rate” relative to Pakistan.  There are non-economists that will be reading this publication.

Response: Dear reviewer, we are thankful to your valuable comment and your kind favor. As per suggestion, Authors revised the related issues of this study and to following term that display the kind of outcomes. You can check in the revised manuscript for further details, which is highlighted with yellow color.

Point:

The first dashboard figure is very good/illustrative.  The figures all need better labels for X,Y axis (rather than using the * footnote under figures). Line 468, use word “money injection”. Lines 522-532 could be updated to more current conditions. Line 580 “assisted to reduce”.

Response: Dear reviewer, thank you so much for yours valuable comments. Authors thoroughly pass through an updated current condition as per suggestion and deeply highlight the points that are needed to be correct and implemented.

Point:

Results and Conclusions: Future study recommendations should match with the introduction in the paper; discuss health and travel & tourism sectors on lines 631-635.

Response: Dear reviewer, this issue has been addressed in the revised manuscript and discuss in summarized detail about health and travel & tourism sector as per suggestion which is highlighted with yellow color.              

Point:

Remove sectors “sports and education” (line 645) as it wasn’t described earlier in the paper. Where is Table 1 (line 658)?

Response: Dear reviewer, this issue has been addressed in the revised manuscript.

Point:

Overall comments: No hypotheses provided and no economic analysis in this paper. The paper is a good discussion of the policy implications of COVID-19, based primarily from a Keynesian approach. It was a pleasure to read as it is well written (without spelling and grammatical issues).

Response: Dear reviewer, we are really thankful and appreciate your valuable comments.

Reviewer 4 Report

From the abstract it is obvious that it focuses on the Pakistan economy, thus the title should somehow include Pakistan or Pakistan economy.

Methodology used is based on the presupposition that the economic slowdown generated by the pandemics can be viewed as a demand shock. While this is perfectly correct, it does not suggest that public strategies such as helicopter money will work on recovering the lost demand. Helicopter money, understood as a monetary policy which expands the quantity of money in circulation can lead to other potential undesirable effects such as inflation.

Lowering the purchasing power will still block the demand from recovery, while also creating many other negative effects in the Pakistan economy. From this point of view, the paper – and its methodology – ignores the bad potential effects of an expansionary monetary policy. A suggestion might be to adjust the Keynesian theory with the insights of other schools of thought (for instance the Austrian school of economics), at least to put in light pro and cons of an expansionary monetary policy.

Fiscal stimulus is also e good strategy but if it means reducing the taxes or the fiscal burden on small businesses. If it means increasing public spending this can put the Pakistan economy on an inefficient road. The paper could be more specific in comparing the pro and cons of using fiscal stimulus by addressing and comparing the main components of it.

Conclusions must be improved; they are not specific and do not address the main proposals of the paper which is using the Keynesian framework to boost the Pakistan economy. Conclusions should remind the reader what should the government do in order to apply the Keynesian strategy to fight the Covid19 pandemic in Pakistan.

Minor language revisions. Improper use of terms: e.g. Money ejaculation

Author Response

The title has been changed as Fresh Insight through Keynesian Theory Approach to Investigate the Economic Impact of Covid-19 Pandemic in Pakistan.

Reviewer.4

Point:

From the abstract it is obvious that it focuses on the Pakistan economy, thus the title should somehow include Pakistan or Pakistan economy.

Response: Dear reviewer, this issue has been addressed in the revised manuscript, which is highlighted with yellow color.

Point:

Methodology used is based on the presupposition that the economic slowdown generated by the pandemics can be viewed as a demand shock. While this is perfectly correct, it does not suggest that public strategies such as helicopter money will work on recovering the lost demand. Helicopter money, understood as a monetary policy which expands the quantity of money in circulation can lead to other potential undesirable effects such as inflation.

Response: Dear reviewer, we are thankful to your valuable comment and your kind favor. As per suggestion, Authors revised the related issues of this study and to following term that display the kind of outcomes. You can check in the revised manuscript for further details, which is highlighted with yellow color.

Point:

Lowering the purchasing power will still block the demand from recovery, while also creating many other negative effects in the Pakistan economy. From this point of view, the paper – and its methodology – ignores the bad potential effects of an expansionary monetary policy. A suggestion might be to adjust the Keynesian theory with the insights of other schools of thought (for instance the Austrian school of economics), at least to put in light pro and cons of an expansionary monetary policy.

Response: Dear reviewer, we are thankful to highlight this valuable comment. According to our study objective, we discussed government policies which used to mitigate the effect of Covid-19 pandemic under Keynesian framework. So, to consistent with topic requirement, we discussed the major advantages of those polices and where was needed, we also deliberated the disadvantages of monetary policy as well. 

Point:

Fiscal stimulus is also e good strategy but if it means reducing the taxes or the fiscal burden on small businesses. If it means increasing public spending this can put the Pakistan economy on an inefficient road. The paper could be more specific in comparing the pro and cons of using fiscal stimulus by addressing and comparing the main components of it.

Response: As per your suggestion I revised the manuscript, yes you are right spending on public is definitely a burden on government but covid-19 create an unusual situation where Pakistan faced both problems at the same time, monetary and fiscal problems. In this situation, Pakistani government, just focused on the positive aspect of those policies, what will be negative? Just ignored for a time being. Therefore, we discussed our topic in this manner.

Point:

Conclusions must be improved; they are not specific and do not address the main proposals of the paper which is using the Keynesian framework to boost the Pakistan economy. Conclusions should remind the reader what the government should do in order to apply the Keynesian strategy to fight the Covid19 pandemic in Pakistan.

Response: Dear reviewer, this issue has been addressed in the revised manuscript. As per suggestion, Keynesian theory approach is applied according to current situation of covid-19 pandemic in Pakistan economy and deeply highlight it with yellow color.

Point:

Minor language revisions. Improper use of terms: e.g. Money ejaculation

Response: Dear reviewer, this issue has been addressed in the revised manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper has been improved. However please check again the information in Chapter 2.5.

Author Response

Reviewer .1

Point:

The paper has been improved. However please check again the information in Chapter 2.5.

Response: Dear reviewer, we are really thankful and appreciate your valuable comments. As per your suggestion, this issue has been addressed in the revised manuscript with yellow coloured. We revised chapter 2.5 according to your valuable suggestion.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors made the required modifications and the paper is at a higher level now and at least it is better to understand.

I still don't like the realization and visualization of the graphs and figures, these are copy-pasted from the sources in very low quality. Graphs can be edited manually based on the sources.

There are several misspellings in the text, serious English proofreading recommended.

Author Response

Reviewer. 2

Point:

The authors made the required modifications and the paper is at a higher level now and at least it is better to understand.

Response: Dear reviewer, Thank you so much for your valuable comment

Point:

I still don't like the realization and visualization of the graphs and figures, these are copy-pasted from the sources in a very low quality. Graphs can be edited manually based on the sources. I fact, I don't really understand why the authors were so lazy to do it.

Response: Dear reviewer, Thank you so much to highlight this point because without this, the worth of our paper would not be what it should be. So as per your suggestion, we manually draw the figures and graphs in revised manuscript.

Point:

There are several misspellings in the text, serious English proofreading recommended.

Response: Dear reviewer, we have revised the manuscript according to the suggestions of reviewers. The grammar has been checked thoroughly native English writer.

Reviewer 4 Report

As the authors considered my recommendations, the proposed paper has been improved. 

Author Response

Reviewer. 3

Point:

As the authors considered my recommendations, the proposed paper has been improved. 

Response: Dear reviewer, we are really thankful and appreciate your valuable comments.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

It is still a not very well organized review paper with a missing methodology description (even if it is a review paper, the methodology should be highlighted and demonstrated - it is just an editing issue as one paragraph is going about it)). Graphs are still of unacceptable quality and appearance.

Author Response

Reviewer: It is still a not very well organized review paper with a missing methodology description (even if it is a review paper, the methodology should be highlighted and demonstrated - it is just an editing issue as one paragraph is going about it)). Graphs are still of unacceptable quality and appearance.

Feedback:

Dear honourable reviewer, thanks for your patience. According to you, the methodology should be highlighted and demonstrated - it is just an editing issue as one paragraph is going about it. I developed a part of the methodology by incorporating the comments. We did our best to manually improve the quality and appearance of the graphs.

Thank you