Empowering Innovation: Advancing Social Entrepreneurship Policies in Croatia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of the impact of public policy on social entrepreneurship is important and worth analysing in a national context. For me, the main challenge in understanding the article submitted for review is its purpose.

It is suggested to formulate a main objective and specific objectives.

It is worth identifying the research problem and research gap that the text is responding to.

The scope of the empirical analysis is very broad. It may be useful to select key themes that should be subordinated to the purpose of the paper. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In my opinion the research is well designed and conducted. The results are very interesting and useful for policy as well as for social practice. The topic is very specific in national context only and this is the weak point of the manuscript. I suggest to rethink the theoretical part. For example the authors mentioned two views of the public policy (lines 59-63) but more important is the fact that this two perspectives have roots in the social and liberal politics  (see: Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics by J. G. March, J. P. Olsen).

The other problem insists in the lack of wider international perspective. The authors have mentioned few facts, but social policy and social entrepreneurship can't be analysed without  references to the specific social situation. In some way Croatia is a part of the post-sovietic social order, where the trust and social cohesion are very specific. It would be nice to write few sentences how such specific inheritance is shaping the opportunities for social policy and enterprises. I suggest to look shortly through:

Kerstin Jacobsson; Steven Saxonberg (ed.): Beyond NGO-ization. The development of social movements in Central and Eastern Europe, 2013

Katarzyna Lasinska: Social Capital in Eastern Europe. Poland an Exception?, 2013

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear colleagues,

I thank you for the opportunity to review this material.

Apart from the fact that it was interesting to gain an insight into how the neighboring country perceives the problem and development of social entrepreneurship, the paper does not contain significant scientific information.

1. The material from the abstract does not follow the classic methodology of writing scientific reports, after the research questions there are no hypotheses on which to base the research, which is ultimately a good thing because

2. There are no serious statistics that would verify the hypotheses. Basic statistics are given in the paper. In that sense

3. A more serious discussion of the results was also completely absent. And more

4. The assumption is that the research has some shortcomings, limitations, etc. Not a word about that.

Aside from the fact that the analyzed problem that is being investigated is very localized, in only one country, which is a member of a larger group of countries (the European Union) and where, however, there could be some comparisons of results, parallel displays, comparisons, possibly comparisons with previous ones results and experiences there, discussions... Anyway, I think radical changes are needed here.

This is a nice and informative material, nothing else. Sorry.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

thank you for accepting my suggestions and editing the paper so that it becomes scientifically interesting from informative.

Of course, it is impossible to correct this now, but the biggest limitation of this material is the localization to one country, which is part of a wider union of countries, where it is certainly possible to carry out certain systematization and comparison of knowledge. This is stated in the directions for further research, but it should also be placed in limitations.

I still think that the abstract should be adjusted - as it stands, it does not contain all the relevant information that should "sell" the findings of the work "at first glance", aside from the fact that they are not "artisanally prepared".

Frankly speaking, I'm not entirely sure that what you put there is usually put in Acknowledgments. Anyway, thanks.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf