Policy Network on the Kotaku Program in the Global South: Findings from Palembang, Indonesia

Reviewer 1

Comment

Date of this review 16 Dec 2022 05:33:32

1.     The Kotaku program is really about slum upgrading – not “Slum Free” cities

I've changed all the words of the "slum-free" Program to "Kotaku Program"

2.     Referencing needs attention

a.      it seems like references on lines 32 and 33 are not included

 Has been fixed

b.     There are references cited as discussing topics they really don’t address: eg Dufty-Jones (2018) does not discuss slums in Australia.

Ok, thanks for the suggestion, I've changed it in those references

3.     Writing in general needs major improvements. There are sentences that are not connected to others; others are too long and hard to follow; and others are incomplete. Some ideas are briefly and randomly mentioned (in isolation from the surrounding text).

Well, I've been working on improving the writing as suggested

4.     The topic of “the handling of the slum areas” is unclear, especially in sentences as: “Meanwhile, the handling of slum areas that has not 64 been optimal is related to the realization of the accelerated handling of slum areas by the 65 Government which has only been realized as many as 23,594 Ha in 34 Provinces spread 66 across 269 Cities in 11,067 Villages.”

Forgive me, I've changed the sentence with the data in question within five years (2014-2019) the area of slum areas in Indonesia has still experienced a significant increase (102%) from 38,000 ha to 87,000 ha spread acros in 34 Provinces 269 Cities in 11,067 Villages

5.     In the introduction: How has the Kotaku Program reduced the coverage slum areas? What is the definition of slum in Indonesia? What specifically does the Kotaku Program do?

I've added the response on lines 32-35

6.     The literature review presented is disconnected from the rest of the paper. What is the role of network action, application and governance in your paper? These topics and their relevance should have been presented in the introduction.

I've added the response on lines 131-134

7.     There is a lot of fundamental literature on informal settlements that are missing: Ananya Roy, Ann Varley, Vanessa Watson, Alan Gilbert, etc. 

Ok, yhanks for the suggestion, I've added the Anaya Roy reference to reference No.27

8.     Literature on slum upgrading programs is of particular importance and not addressed at all.  Particular useful papers to engage in a real critical discussion on the topic are: 

Thanks for the reference recommendation, I find the reference very helpful, especially for contributions to this paper

a.     Werlin, H. (1999). The Slum Upgrading Myth. Urban studies (Edinburgh, Scotland), 36(9), 1523-1534. doi:10.1080/0042098992908

I've added reference No. 28

b.     Desai, V., & Loftus, A. (2013). Speculating on Slums: Infrastructural Fixes in Informal Housing in the Global South. Antipode, 45(4), 789-808. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8330.2012.01044.x

I've added reference No. 3

c.     Jones, B. G. (2012). 'Bankable Slums': the global politics of slum upgrading. Third world quarterly, 33(5), 769-789. doi:10.1080/01436597.2012.679027

 I've added reference No. 26

9.     The methodology section is too long. This could be summarised to less than one page to give room to a critical literature review and the findings

 Ok. Thanks for the suggestion. I've fixed that

a.     In the interviewees’ positions: what is “society”?

 The community in this case is the one who receives the benefits of the Kotaku Program

b.     The data analysis section does not really explain how the data was analysed.

Ok. Thanks for the suggestion. I've fixed that

10.  The results section is partly descriptive and partly formed by unfunded statements that seldom relate to the category in which they were included. There is a need to be more analytical and critical, and to better develop the argument.

Ok. Thanks for the suggestion. I've fixed that

11.  The results section presents some participants’ quotes are evidence; however, they do not relate to the topics discussed. Therefore, these quotes do not support the “analysis” presented.

 Ok. Thanks for the suggestion. I've fixed that

12.  What does “caring” mean in “caring between parties”? I think there might be a misunderstanding of what the word “caring” means.

 Ok. Thanks for the suggestion. I've fixed that. Caring mean in the context of “community concern towards slums”

13.  The discussion and conclusion also need to be more critical not just of the findings but also of the context in which this case study is framed. Additionally, further consideration of the literature is required

 I've fixed that

R2

Comment

Date of this review

12/22/2022 15:13

1.     Thi is an intersting manuscript that reports on important and timely research. Although I liked reading the paper which will certainly make a contribution to the filed, I must ask the authors to looki into some of the formatting. That regards the Bibliography in particular

I am so grateful you have expressed interest in my paper. I am also very grateful for the advice given.

1.     Introduction:

a.     take care of the numbers of notes 1 and 2, they are not properly edited; additionally, footnote 1 is repeated twice, check if this was intended

Yes. Thanks for the suggestion. I've fixed that

b.     the description of the issue of slum areas is well described, while a proper theoretical framing is missing. Before moving to next sections, this manuscript can be framed in several disciplines. On line 108 you wrote 'Given the nature of the work', but this nature is unclear.

 Yes. Thanks for the suggestion. I've fixed that

c.     The recalling of governance systems is just a brief mention (lines 114-117) while a description of the literature you considered as reference should be more detailed

 Yes. Thanks for the suggestion. I've fixed that

d.     Consequently, the research goal (lines 134-137) is not mirroring a gap found in literature and needs to be reshaped

  Yes. Thanks for the suggestion. I've fixed that

2.     Literature review:

a.     the literature review is a bit confused, with a mix of topics. The topics are all interested and related to the debate on cities, but they are not related among them and some of them are proposed more than once without a proper comparison of theoretical posture

Yes, thanks for the recommendation, I have already entered the relevant information

b.     the collaboration in a network oriented to cities can be seen as related to the helices models. I think this would help in positioning this manuscript

Yes, thanks for the recommendation, I have already entered the relevant information

c.     what is still unclear after reading the review is the scientific domain you refer to. Is it public governance, political science, a managerial perspective to cities, or something else?

The point of this study is in the realmof public administration studies, specifically Governance. Where policy networks are seen as a substitute for policies in a series of strategies to deal with various public problems, such as poverty, environmental issues such as slums, climate change, environmental protection, natural resource management, disaster management, and others.

d.     The research gap is not described in a proper way leading to the research goal

 Ok. Thanks for the suggestion. I've fixed that

3.     Method:

a.     the goal of 'explores and understand the meaning of real life in depth' is very vague and not related to previous studies

 Yes, in my opinion, the goal of 'explores and understand the meaning of real life in depth’ is to make this research more informative to the public

b.     the platform is mentioned in line 244, but besides several studies refer to it, there is not any reference to this tool

 Ok. Thanks for the suggestion. I've fixed that

c.     sub-section 3.1 is too wide compared to the remainder of the section

Ok. Thanks for the suggestion. I've fixed that

d.     why did you stop to 20 interviews?

Because the 20 interviewees already represent all five elements in the pentahelix model and provide the necessary information

e.     how did you ensure objectivity in data collection and analysis? How were questions set?

 Questions are determined based on information that the informant knows

f.      the informants are not equally distributed, is this by chance or a deliberate choice? All in all, how did this affect the study?

 Informants selected from a variety of stakeholders (pentahelix model), government, private sector (private/company), academy (Academics), community (non-governmental organizations), and the media itself by considering the existing socio-political conditions) in order to contribute a lot to the paper

g.     what is the reason to translate transcripts? I mean, the authors are from the same area than the respondents (at least apparently), so why did you need a translation?

So that what the respondent conveys can be understood in this paper and contribute correct information

h.     data analysis is not described. Did you opt for categorization? Did you use a software?

Ok. Thanks for the suggestion. I

 didn't use any software

4.     Results:

a.     it is hard to understand how findings might generate a framework and there is no trace of how the framework was set. A framework like the one you have usually derives from literature

  I've fixed that

b.     clarifying the origin of the categories would increase reliability

 Yes, thanks for responses. I've fixed that

5.     Discussion are interesting, but they are not related at all to literature, so your contribution is missing and there are no theoretical implications. Moreover, some topics you mentioned in the introduction, in the literature review, and in the method are not recalled in the discussion, thus it seems there are evidence on different issues. Additionally, the 3 challenges mentioned in the abstract are not carefully mirrored in the discussion, but only recalled in conclusions.

 Yes, thanks for responses. I've fixed that

6.     Finally, you mentioned limitations, but they should be described some more

 Yes, thanks for responses