Public Policies for Sustainable Territorial Development in Brazil: Between Clientelism and Participation^†

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

The article is interesting. Its most significant advantage is the important empirical research and the analyzed research problem.

I recommend the publication of this article, but some changes and additions need to be made, in my opinion.

The Introduction chapter should be divided into two separate sections. One is Introduction, and the other is Research Review. This second chapter is already primarily written. However, reading in detail, I see a minimal range of references to international literature and research. These studies are well developed today. Including them would surely enrich the article. It would certainly also show the authors' explanations in a broader context.

The map in Fig. 1. in this version is a bit indistinct.

Chapter 4 is, in my opinion, a form of Discussion. About 60% of the sentences in this chapter can be the basis of the Discussion. However, the reference mentioned above to the world discourse is missing here. It is also possible to better articulate the strengths and weaknesses of the Authors' findings.

From this perspective, the article will benefit from readers also living in other countries of the world. This version is more aimed at Brazilian and Latin American readers.

My observations are confirmed that about 80% of the literature in the final list is in Portuguese. It also creates a problem for a Reviewer who does not know this language, who must ad hoc accept the literal quotations and references made by the Authors.

Therefore, I recommend internationalizing the article more and making some appropriate additions and changes.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thanks a lot for your reading, and proposals. I have accepted all your recommandations and changed mi text in your sens

• introduction is shorter and divided with a Research Review section with an high range of references to international literature and research about clientelism and rural development in south countries, enlarging the context
•  The new Chapter 4 was transformed in Discussion chapter introducing non brazilian latin american references.

  Best regards

Eric Sabourin

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I would suggest that author distinct more clearly which results are obtained through which methodology or tool. It is not clear what comes from interviews, what from meeting observations, what is from official documents ect. Please compare your research with similar studies in other countries (regions). For that matter I suggest Discussion section.

Also, it would sound more like scientific observation if the pronoun "I" (e.g. "I would like to clarify....") would be avoided and transferred into neutral form.

Author Response

Dera Reviewer

First of all thank you very much for your contribution and suggestions that I have integrated in this revised version;

• the explanation of methodology was changed  and better separate and explain which results come from the sociological approcah and which come from the anthropological reciprocity analysis
• a complete review of international literature on clientelism and rural development projetcs and policies in south countries was added in section 2. and integrated in a discussion section (number 4)
• the expression  "I would like to clarify....") was  transferred into neutral form.
• All the changed part are in blue

Best regards

 Eric Sabourin

eric Sabourin

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Review of the manuscript (sustainability-1440785) entitled “Public policies for sustainable territorial development in Brazil: Between clientelism and participation.

 

 

The manuscript investigates a topic that is of interest in the search for more sustainable territorial development. It uses a socio-anthropological analytical framework to examine the effects of public policy based on clientelistic practices and participatory approach on rural territorial development in Brazil.

 

My view is that the current version of the paper is unacceptable for publication in Sustainability for the following reasons.

 

1.- If a version of the manuscript were published in Portuguese in the “Revista Brasileira de Sociologia Economia Rural,” I do not see what would justify its publication for an international readership. In that respect, almost 70% of the papers quoted in the manuscript are in Portuguese, which complicates the evaluation of the quality of the cited papers. In addition, this suggests that the study is intended for a restricted (location-specific) audience. Furthermore, what is the added value of this version of the manuscript and the version that is already published?

 

2.- The manuscript is poorly motivated. The introduction fails to clearly identify from the existing studies what we know and what we do not know (knowledge gaps). Therefore, I suggest that the authors indicate clearly why the analysis carried out was needed in order to convey a consistent message to the readers.

 

3.- Honestly speaking, the methodology is not very clear and transparent. I do not see anything on the formal aspects of public policy evaluation/analysis. Whereas the authors claim that they generate results on the relationship between public policy and sustainability, nothing is clearly said about the sustainability dimensions considered (e.g., justification, trade-offs between dimensions).

The data were collected by combining three techniques (why?). In addition, nothing is said about the sample size, the representativeness of the data collected, and the variables of interest. More importantly, I do not see whether the data were analyzed using descriptive, explicative, or causal methods.

 

4.- Honestly, it is very difficult to see whether the results come from a formal (statistical, econometrics, etc.) analysis, or whether the authors tell us about their experiences or something else. In the current form of the manuscript, it looks like the authors are discussing results that are not presented in the manuscript. This way of analyzing the data and presenting the results is probably in line with the standards of anthropological studies, but from a scientific point of view, it seems very strange to a non-anthropologist.

 

Minor comments

Why Figure 2 is in French, while the manuscript is in English?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

First of all I ma gratefull for your positive reading and constructive suggestions, which I have all incorporated in this revised version of my manuscript. All the chanhe are in blue.

1. I was very transparent with the guest editors of the special issue who asked for my paper and with  the Journal chief editor that it was an updated translation of a portuguese published version about a single study case in Brazil and only in BraziL   Anyway for this new version I introduced more than 30%  of non portuguese references and in this revised version I propose a new  review of international literature about clientelism and rural developement in the south countries, with 30 new international references (in English) about the 70 total references

2.- The  introduction was modificated and point the gap  among research and literature about rural clientelism and clientelism in public policies implementation and how this paper could contribute to reduce this gap with a contexted study case in Brazil

3.- Thepresentation o the methodology was changed and makes clear the results due to sociological approcah and those coming from anthropological reciprocity analysis. This paper has nothing to see with public policy formal evaluation. It ias about actors interactions and relationships of clientelism among a participatory approach of territorial development projects. The relationship between public policy and sustainability, is clearly presented and has to do mainly with social and socio-political pillar of sutainaibility.

4. The results come from a qualitative anthropological analysis in line with the standards of anthropological studies. But I am an anthropologist and we use also scientific rational frameworks even if it may seem " very strange to a non-anthropologist".. Econometric financial models are also very exotic and strange for me. But I do not question their scientific quality as I m not competent.

Figure 2 was translated in English

II sincerely appreciate your frank and direct comments in order to propose a better version of my manuscript.

Best regards

Eric Sabourin

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper concentrates on the important issue from the perspective of the public authorities  and the political actors in regard to the Brazilian public policy of rural territorial development.

 

However, before publication the paper needs following improvements:

1. Motivation is weak. Authors could better define the aim of the paper. Moreover, they could better point out the existing gap in the literature.
2. Introduction should be extended, i.e. brief information on used methods, why this method was chosen instead of etc.
3. Literature review and improvements in regard to literature background should be made. Examples of articles that may be useful for the authors identifying similar contributions and better show what is the specific contribution.

• Lewandowska, A., Stopa, M., Inglot-Brzęk, E. (2021) Innovativeness and entrepreneurship: Socioeconomic remarks on regional development in peripheral regions. Economics and Sociology, 14(2), 222-235. doi: 10.14254/2071-789X.2021/14-2/12
• Rodríguez, A.J.G.; Barón, N.J.; Martínez, J.M.G. (2020) Validity of Dynamic Capabilities in the Operation Based on New Sustainability Narratives on Nature Tourism SMEs and Clusters. Sustainability, 12, 1004. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12031004
• Lewandowska, A., Pater, R., Cywiński Ł. (2019) Determinants of business innovation in the Regional Innovation System context. Policy implications for a less developed region. Studia regionalne i lokalne, 1(75), 5-27. doi: 10.7366/1509499517501
• Swaffield, Simon R.; Corry, Robert C.; Opdam, Paul; McWilliam, Wendy; Primdahl, Jørgen (2019) Connecting business with the agricultural landscape: business strategies for sustainable rural development. Business Strategy & the Environment, 28(7), 1357-1369. doi: 10.1002/bse.2320.

In my opinion these four references cannot be omitted.

4. Discussion should be better. The results are presented clearly, but the findings are not compared and contrasted with relevant literature. Linking theoretical considerations with empirical findings and providing some planning insights is critical in a journal with the scope of Sustainability.
5. Conclusions should be extended with the information on ideas for future research.

I hope that my comments are helpful to you as you continue your work on this project. Good luck!

Author Response

Dear Revewer

 I sincerely appreciate some of your frank and direct comments in order to improve my text and I did not understood nothing from other of your comments and proposal which seem to have nothing to see with the purpose of my paper. Anyway thank you very much for your time and consideration.

I send you ea new  revised version with important and numerous changes which integrate some of your suggestions.

1. the aim of the paper was better defined in the introduction as well as the gap in specific literature on clientelism in rural policy development  this study case would contribute to reduce.
2.  An explanation about  sociological approach of actors interactions and anthropolical reciprocityu analysis of their relationships and the place of clientelism in these relations was made in the amplified subsection of methodology
3. I have added a large review of international literature about clientelism and development projects and policies in South countries identifying similar contributions and showing better our specific contribution
4. .In my opinion your four proposals of references have nothing to deal with the subject, the object and even the context of my research, sorry not to use them thistime for this paper.

4. A specific Discussion section was improved in order to discuss the results from the international literature points of vue.
5. The  information on ideas for future research is mainly  presented at the end of the section 4 and in the conclusion. But the conclusion inist on the synthesis of the findings and lessons of the Brazilian study case.

  Thank you again for your critical reading and good proposals

Best regards

Eric Sabourin

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Author,

The revised version of the article is, in my opinion, much better. I only have a few minor comments.

Chapter 1. Clientelism and rural development: an international review - I would give the title Research overview.

2.4 Methods should be a separate chapter.

Chapter 2 (without Methods) should be after the Methods chapter. This chapter will be No. 3 then. The subsequent chapters need to be renumbered.

Lines 349-351 - you need to correct the font style.

Figure 2 is illegible. It is advisable to enlarge it or enlarge the descriptions.

Chapter 4. Clientelism and reciprocity: a discussion - change of title to Discussion.

 

Author Response

Dear Revewer

Thnaks for your last revision. I have accepted and made all your requests. Only I did not create a new chapter only for methodological section. First because it would be completely assimetrical; second because in social sciences the section method comes after the problem and context and after the theoretical section. There is no reason to create a method chapter and absolutely no logic to put this method section befor the context and the theoretical references. Modifications are in red brown letters

Best regards

Eric Sabourin

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf