Impact of Oil Price on Economic Growth of OECD Countries: A Dynamic Panel Data Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article raises a relevant topic and reflects new findings that might have practical use. However, this paper still needs some clarifications and improvements.

1. It would be useful to show in the Introduction section how dependent the OECD countries are on oil consumption. How has consumption volume changed over the past 20 years? How has the structure of energy consumption changed, taking into account the active adoption of renewable energy?

2. The outcome of the study is extremely relevant. Although the analysis covers data for the years 2000-2020, it would be great to try to make a conclusion about the impact of the oil price increase starting in 2021 on the current economic situation in the OECD countries. The energy crisis of 2022 in the OECD countries showed a very strong dependence of the economies of these countries on the main energy carriers. It would be interesting to see how the current rate of recession compares with the estimates in your paper. Anyway, the final section needs to be expanded and this might be an option.

3. The article needs some spell check.

Line 158: independents variables = independent variables

The footer of Table 3: “* - Significant at 1%” should be replaced by 10%.

 

The Observation column in Table 2 seems superfluous, since its value is constant for all variables. The number of observations can be specified in the text.

Author Response

See the attached file 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

Dear Author/s,

 

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to read your paper. The paper “Impact of Oil Price on Economic Growth of OECD Countries: A Dynamic Panel Data Analysis” is interesting for journal readers. But following changes should be done before the consideration to improve the quality of the paper:

 

- Abstract: I suggest authors to rewrite the abstract to make it more constructive. Abstract should have at least one sentence per each: context and background, motivation, hypothesis, methods, results, conclusions.

1.     The introduction part of the study needs improvement and story flow and the authors need to give proper contributions to their study.

2.     I noticed that the novelty of this paper is not described in detail. This should be put in the introduction section properly.

There is a need to do a more rigorous and systematic literature review. The authors should clearly mention the literature gap. Visit:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-16720-2 (should add more recent literature to the paper). 

3.     I would like to suggest that authors should update the introduction, literature, and results part. Specifically, the latest research trends, and in order to highlight the academic frontier of the research, the references of the recent year need to be referenced.

4.     How did the authors get from the theoretical model to the empirical one? Discuss more the findings

5.     The authors have only presented the findings, with no explanation of their economic reasoning. Do these findings validate or disprove the current policy framework? Are any new policy measures planned as a result of the findings? Discussion of the findings, which is conspicuously absent here, is meant to spark debate on policy. If the results don't offer anything new in terms of theory or policy, then a simple comparison with the literature won't prove their originality.

    6.  conclusion and Future research directions - limitations section are very poor.

 

 

 

Author Response

See the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In general, the topic is interesting in spite of traditional study.

Introduction

- The paper’s results should be summarized at the end of the introduction section.
- The advantages of the applied methodology should be articulated in the introduction section. Why this specific methodology is applied and what are its competing advantages over other existing methodologies?

Literature review

- The literature review section is quite comprehensively written however I would suggest to update some studies on the topic to 2021 and 2022. In this way, this study may have more topical in the literature.

Methodology

I look forwards to see brief description of Generalised Method of Moment in this section.

Figure 1 is a little blur and the word “Government” should not be interrupted.

I wonder whether the authors consider panel ARDL for this topic so that one can find not only the impact of independent variables on the dependent variable but also its own past lagged values as well as current and past values of other explanatory variables.


Data analysis

- Could the authors explain the reasons why they choose the period of 2000-2020, whilst recent event of Russia-Ukraine war attracting public attention which has a great influence on the oil price.

 

Other comments

- I observed some typos, grammatical mistakes and language issues. Therefore, the paper should go through professional proof-editing phase.

Author Response

See the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have done a great job, I have no more comments on the content. I would only suggest changing Figure 2 to a horizontal bar chart instead of a pie chart. Pie charts are on average worse visually perceived (see E. Tufty)

Reviewer 2 Report

accept