How Public Procurement Mechanisms Can Be Used as a Tool for Developing Pro-Poor Food Value Chains: From Entry Points to Interventions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper presents a well-established study on the possible ways to improve the procurement mechanisms in food production and distribution chains. Still, the paper needs certain revisions.
The title declares two groups of actors, which are governments and international organizations. However, in the text, the author does not differentiate the approaches to improving food supply at the national and the international levels. These differences must be addressed, the findings must be emphasized accordingly, and the similarities and dissimilarities in approaches should be discussed comprehensively.
What are the pro-poor chains? The author should explain the concept and demonstrate how exactly the study focuses on such chains. Examples of certain countries could be helpful. Also, the generalization of the problem should be made - does the problem prevail in developing or least developed countries, or developed countries as well? The findings must be discussed differently for different economic and social environments.
If the author specifically focuses on small farmers, the focus must be addressed in both the paper title and the abstract. Otherwise, a reader could be misled.
The Abstract should be reworked to better balance all the critical components a reader should know before proceeding with reading the full paper. The Abstract must be as catchy and at the same time as informative as possible. The author should trim the relevance-related narrative (now nearly a half of the section) and pay adequate attention to revealing the gaps the paper aims to address, explaining the methods, summarizing major findings, and projecting potential implications of the findings for future studies and policies.
In the Introduction, the author should extend the narrative on gaps on previous and current studies and policies and demonstrate how the paper could help bridging these gaps. The aim of the study must be articulated clearly.
Figure 1 and Figure 4: probably, too cartooned for an academic paper. The author could easily explain the essence of the figures in a couple of sentences without occupying unnecessary space in the paper body.
Line 308 and line 314-315: why these particular sources? What about books, chapters, monographs, reports, etc. Did the author introduce any criteria to the journals? What does exactly "peer-reviewed journals" mean? These issues must be clarified.
Line 309: no restriction on paper year? Does that mean the array included papers published decades ago? How old is the oldest publication? To my mind, a certain criteria should be introduced here.
Author Response
We are thankful to the reviewer for his/her careful reading and important comments that allow us to improve the clearness of the manuscript. Please find hereunder our reply to each comment.
The paper presents a well-established study on the possible ways to improve the procurement mechanisms in food production and distribution chains. Still, the paper needs certain revisions.
The title declares two groups of actors, which are governments and international organizations. However, in the text, the author does not differentiate the approaches to improving food supply at the national and the international levels. These differences must be addressed, the findings must be emphasized accordingly, and the similarities and dissimilarities in approaches should be discussed comprehensively.
Reply: The aim of the paper was to provide informed insights to devise a practical approach for implementation of public procurement, regardless of the group of actors. We agree that the title was misleading, and it was modified accordingly. The reviewer’s comment is closely related to the overall revision considered necessary to clarify the objective of the study and the gaps that it aims at addressing (see further comments/answers).
What are the pro-poor chains? The author should explain the concept and demonstrate how exactly the study focuses on such chains. Examples of certain countries could be helpful. Also, the generalization of the problem should be made - does the problem prevail in developing or least developed countries, or developed countries as well? The findings must be discussed differently for different economic and social environments.
Reply: A pro-poor value chain intervention or pro-poor value chains development is an established concept in the literature and can be described as an approach that “promotes the inclusion and empowerment of poor people in value chains, with a view to increasing their income and improving their well-being” (IFAD). The concept is now framed in the ”objective/aim” paragraph, accompanied by literature references. Pro-poor interventions in value chains development can be implemented both in developing and developed countries. Nonetheless, the study addresses only small farmers from developing countries. In this regards, please note that Table 3 shows some interventions that are not pro-poor, since it aims at illustrating examples of direct food purchase, as contextualised. It is now clarified in the manuscript.
If the author specifically focuses on small farmers, the focus must be addressed in both the paper title and the abstract. Otherwise, a reader could be misled.
Reply: We included smallholder farmers as keyword and the focus is explicit in the revised abstract. By referring “DEVELOPING PRO-POOR FOOD VALUE CHAINS”, the attention given to small farmers is implicit in the title.
The Abstract should be reworked to better balance all the critical components a reader should know before proceeding with reading the full paper. The Abstract must be as catchy and at the same time as informative as possible. The author should trim the relevance-related narrative (now nearly a half of the section) and pay adequate attention to revealing the gaps the paper aims to address, explaining the methods, summarizing major findings, and projecting potential implications of the findings for future studies and policies.
Reply: We absolutely agree with the review. The Abstract was re-written.
In the Introduction, the author should extend the narrative on gaps on previous and current studies and policies and demonstrate how the paper could help bridging these gaps. The aim of the study must be articulated clearly.
Reply: We acknowledge the reviewer for pointing this out. Respective paragraphs were included both in the final part of the Introduction and in the initial paragraph of the Material and Methods subsections, to clarify the aim of the study and the gaps addressed.
Figure 1 and Figure 4: probably, too cartooned for an academic paper. The author could easily explain the essence of the figures in a couple of sentences without occupying unnecessary space in the paper body.
Reply: We understand the reviewer’s view, but we consider that Figures 1 and 4 are informative and useful for a smooth reading of the respective sections. Moreover, taking collectively the Figure and its legend, the space occupied by the putative replacing sentences would be similar. Hence, we prefer to keep the Figures.
Line 308 and line 314-315: why these particular sources? What about books, chapters, monographs, reports, etc. Systematic review Did the author introduce any criteria to the journals? What does exactly "peer-reviewed journals" mean? These issues must be clarified.
Reply: Yes, we followed standard approaches for a Systematic review and the sources were selected according to the criteria explained in the Systematic Review (sub-section 3.1). We recognize that “Peer-Reviewed literature (journals and papers)” is a well-established concept (https://www.nlm.nih.gov/nichsr/stats_tutorial/section3/mod6_peer.html).
Line 309: no restriction on paper year? Does that mean the array included papers published decades ago? How old is the oldest publication? To my mind, a certain criteria should be introduced here.
Reply: The criteria used is explained in section 3.1 (“The database searches were limited to English-language literature with no restrictions on publication year or author”). The list of the final 75 papers analysed after full text screening and relevance is now provided as Supplemental Material, providing additional information, namely the date of publication of each paper.
Reviewer 2 Report
Review 1 Sustainability – 2223518
Dear colleagues,
From its title, this paper announces the intention to explain how public procurement mechanisms can be a tool for developing pro-poor food chains. After the introduction, the authors describe what a value chain is (with emphasis on the roles played by multiple actors) and then public procurement, and its potential contributions to development. The materials and methods section presents a literature review on the role of smallholders in the value chain, challenges faced by smallholder farmers, sustainable development goals and poverty reduction through the direct market purchase. The results highlight the benefits of public procurement through smallholders farmers and a series of findings from the literature, in order to build a framework of analysis and action. A proposed framework is then presented in section 5. The conclusion is given in section 6.
This paper is therefore mainly based on a literature review. It has some weaknesses that need to be addressed before it can be published. The most important is the absence of one or more clear research questions, and the answer to these research questions. Presumably, the general question guiding the state of the art is something like 'is public procurement an effective tool for developing pro-poor food chains'? The question then seems to be how the government and aid agencies work together. But it is not clear which questions are actually being tested, nor by which method the authors will decide to answer these questions. The result is a lot of confusion in the concepts, which are far too numerous.
On the other hand, the English language (and in particular the grammar) is not mastered, which causes interpretation problems for the readers.
The keywords do not contain "public procurement" and remain very general.
Author Response
We are thankful to the reviewer for his/her careful reading and important comments that allow us to improve the clearness of the manuscript. Please find hereunder our reply to each comment.
From its title, this paper announces the intention to explain how public procurement mechanisms can be a tool for developing pro-poor food chains. After the introduction, the authors describe what a value chain is (with emphasis on the roles played by multiple actors) and then public procurement, and its potential contributions to development. The materials and methods section presents a literature review on the role of smallholders in the value chain, challenges faced by smallholder farmers, sustainable development goals and poverty reduction through the direct market purchase. The results highlight the benefits of public procurement through smallholders farmers and a series of findings from the literature, in order to build a framework of analysis and action. A proposed framework is then presented in section 5. The conclusion is given in section 6.
This paper is therefore mainly based on a literature review. It has some weaknesses that need to be addressed before it can be published. The most important is the absence of one or more clear research questions, and the answer to these research questions. Presumably, the general question guiding the state of the art is something like 'is public procurement an effective tool for developing pro-poor food chains'? The question then seems to be how the government and aid agencies work together. But it is not clear which questions are actually being tested, nor by which method the authors will decide to answer these questions. The result is a lot of confusion in the concepts, which are far too numerous.
Reply: We absolutely agree with the review. The Abstract was re-written and respective paragraphs were included both in the final part of the Introduction and in the initial part of Material and Methods subsections, to clarify the aim of the study and the gaps addressed. Please note that the literature review was done to contextualise our proposal of an analytical framework that orients devising the implementation of public procurement schemes pro-poor. We must emphasise that the study is not restricted to a review. Clarification is now provided in the revised version of the manuscript.
On the other hand, the English language (and in particular the grammar) is not mastered, which causes interpretation problems for the readers.
Reply: Editing was done and the language was revised.
The keywords do not contain "public procurement" and remain very general.
Reply: This was well noted. The keywords were revised, and “Public procurement” was now included.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I thank the author for addressing my Round 1 recommendations and making revisions. While some of the concerns of mine have been eliminated efficiently, the critical points have remained underexplored. The approach to selecting the papers remains unclear to me, no modifications have been made to explain it. How was the final array of papers established, what were the selection criteria, and other methodology-related issues have remained poorly detailed by the author. The revisions made to the initial version of the text are minor, especially in terms of the knowledge gaps and the pro-poor value chain concept
Author Response
We are thankful to the reviewer for his/her notes. Please find hereunder our reply to the comments.
Answers to the Reviewer
The approach to selecting the papers remains unclear to me, no modifications have been made to explain it. How was the final array of papers established, what were the selection criteria, and other methodology-related issues have remained poorly detailed by the author.
Reply: A sentence was adjusted / added to the final paragraph of section 3.1 (lines 366-370), to improve clarity. We followed standard approaches for a Systematic review and the sources were selected according to the criteria explained in sub-section 3.1. We are providing the list of the final 75 papers analysed after full text screening and relevance, as Supplemental Material. An additional box, mentioning the approach followed to restrict from 100 papers to 71 was added to the PRISMA diagram (Figure 3).
The revisions made to the initial version of the text are minor, especially in terms of the knowledge gaps and the pro-poor value chain concept
Reply: We stress that “pro-poor value chain interventions” and “pro-poor value chains development” are very well-established concepts in the literature. In our previous revision, we framed the concept in the ”objective/aim” paragraph, properly referenced for those less familiar with the definition. Public procurement of food from smallholder farmers is a well-recognised strategy to intervene in value chains in benefit of the most vulnerable populations, i.e. “pro-poor”. Although the concepts are an assumption of this study, an additional sentence was added, and additional references are now provided (lines 115-119). We consider it to be sufficient and adequate for the manuscript readers.
A revised version of the manuscript is attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
I thank the authors for responding to my Round 2 comments and making the respective revisions in the manuscript. What remains unclear is the keywords search. Did the authors used "Keyword 1 AND Keyword 2 AND Keyword 3" approach? Or "Keyword 1 OR Keyword 2 OR Keyword 3"? Or a combination of AND/OR. I think that only a separate search for the sustainability keyword (for example) alone can produce 784 items, but there are many other keywords used. This issue must be explained. Also, what remains unanswered is how the authors reduced the array from 784 selections down to only 71 items. I still fail to see any explicit selection criteria. The authors say that applied full text screening to look for practical approaches - what are those practical approaches and how can they be measured? The approach to establishing the array is subjective, it can not be reproduced in future studies due to the absence of clear criteria, and thus the results may be unreliable.
Author Response
We acknowledge the reviewer’s comments. The recent commentary was very clear in standing the question regarding the methodology used in the literature review. We agree that describing our approach as a “systematic review” is misleading. We aimed at giving an overview of developing information from a variety of sources, mapping and summarising evidence-based research in order to identify the research phenomenon's goals and gaps in order to influence policy evaluation and future research. Therefore, we significantly changed the Material and Methods section (new text provided in attached file) to describe the approach as a scoping review. The PRISMA diagram and Table 1 were adjusted accordingly, to identify inclusion and exclusion criteria. Along the full text, “systematic review” was altered to “literature review”, “dedicated review” or “scoping review”. Supporting references were added to the list. We hope that the manuscript is now clear are suitable for publication. Thank you for the inputs.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
