Inequalities and Asymmetries in the Development of Angola’s Provinces: The Impact of Colonialism and Civil War
, Marco Antonio Rojo Gutiérrez 3,5, Mónica Gracia Villar 3,6 and Frigdiano Álvaro Durántez Prados 3,4
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper addresses a very important topic and will be an interesting contribution. Some improvements in focus are needed. (1) The paper announces an interest in regional (provincial) inequalities, but much or most of the focus is on urban-rural differences. (2) The authors assume that investments by the state and (large-scale?) private actors reduce provincial inequality (or urban-rural inequality), but this is not necessarily true. Investment in extractive industry can sometime even worsen standards of living in the targeted region. (3) It seems necessary to discuss the agricultural production profile (or productive profile) of the regions discussed. Why doesn't agriculture -- eg. small scale family agriculture -- support livelihoods in the predominantly rural provinces? What about the coffee sector or other forms of commercial agriculture, past, present, and potentially in the future? (Had these all been destroyed by 1975? How does this interact with the concept of "investment" featured in the authors' analysis?) (3) The tables and figures need to be translated and discussed more systematically in the text. (4) would be interesting to reflect upon the political implications of the authors' analysis.
Author Response
To whom it may concern:
The team of researchers who wrote the article in question would like to thank you for your time and professionalism in reviewing it. The following is a response to each of the comments submitted:
(1) The paper announces an interest in regional (provincial) inequalities, but much or most of the focus is on urban-rural differences.
It is understood that the observation is a description with which the authors agree because this is the focus of the analysis. And since it is not interpreted that there is no correction nothing is corrected, there is concomitance and agreement with the observation.
(2) The authors assume that investments by the state and (large-scale?) private actors reduce provincial inequality (or urban-rural inequality), but this is not necessarily true. Investment in extractive industry can sometime even worsen standards of living in the targeted region.
This was considered in the introduction, clarifying the importance of national investments and their influence on development, which can be seen in the development and restatement of paragraph 4. With respect to investment in extractive and artisanal fishing industries, it is argued that the development of these activities did not significantly reduce poverty rates, for which the idea of Bene and Neiland is cited.
(3) It seems necessary to discuss the agricultural production profile (or productive profile) of the regions discussed. Why doesn't agriculture -- e.g., small scale family agriculture -- support livelihoods in the predominantly rural provinces? What about the coffee sector or other forms of commercial agriculture, past, present, and potentially in the future? (Had these all been destroyed by 1975? How does this interact with the concept of "investment" featured in the authors' analysis?).
The way in which this observation was corrected was by adding four paragraphs in the section "Inequalities and Asymmetries" in which it is explained that the entrepreneurial agriculture carried out in the past and at present are provinces with a high level of poverty. All the provinces that have family agriculture have not been able to produce surpluses that bring development to the region. The latter still run the risk of losing their land to corporate agriculture due to the pressure of international commodity demand. The provinces that made profits were intermediaries in the transportation route for the export of products such as coffee.
(4) The tables and figures need to be translated and discussed more systematically in the text.
The way to correct this observation was to translate the images and tables, which can be seen in this new version of the article, and the correction of other observations led to the discussion of the images.
(5) It would be interesting to reflect upon the political implications of the authors' analysis.
The authors prefer to position themselves objectively in relation to the issues addressed so as not to influence the results of the research.
Reviewer 2 Report
The title and subject are clear. The subject is interesting. There is a lack of studies on regional inequalities about Angola.
The impact of colonialism and civil war are not clearly treated in the paper. There is also a need to distinguish better the two periods.
Furthermore, what inequality indicators are best suited for the purpose of the authors? Theres should be a discussion of the relevance and quality of the indicatores chosen.
Style should be improved. The formatation of the citations should be corrected. They stand out of bound.
The methodology section lacks clarity and good style.
The conceptual discussion of regions as object and subject should be deepened and up to date. Here, as in many part of the paper, the references are not very recent. There is also a lack of discussion of other authors on that matter.
Abstract could be improved.
See also my notes on the other file.
I would suggest a better explanation of the methodological choices.
The definition and separation between object and subject should be done on the basis of the literature.
The paper has a lot of statements (see the file with some comments) unsubstantited either by data or research. This paper lacks references to data and to recent theoretical and empirical research on Angola.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
To whom it may concern:
The team of researchers who wrote the article in question would like to thank you for your time and professionalism in reviewing it. The following is a response to each of the comments submitted:
(1) The title and subject are clear. The subject is interesting. There is a lack of studies on regional inequalities about Angola.
There are few theorists who talk about regional inequalities. The most recognized is Alves Rocha, and he has been mentioned on more than one occasion in the text and also in the conclusions. Some aspects of inequalities were clarified at the beginning of the introduction, specifically in paragraphs 3 and 4.
(2) The impact of colonialism and civil war are not clearly treated in the paper. There is also a need to distinguish better the two periods.
The way to remedy this observation was an introductory paragraph in the section called "Inequalities and Asymmetries. Its evolution from the colonial era to the beginning of the civil war," where a brief definition of the colonial era and the civil war and the periods in which they occurred is made as well as in the summary.
(3) Furthermore, what inequality indicators are best suited for the purpose of the authors? There should be a discussion of the relevance and quality of the indicators chosen.
The authors consider that the best indicator for analyzing inequalities is the Gini coefficient. However, due to the lack of information regarding this indicator for each of the provinces studied, it was decided to use specific indicators that demonstrate the existing asymmetries.
(4) Style should be improved. The formulation of the citations should be corrected. They stand out of bound.
The way to correct this observation was to modify and improve some quotations throughout the text as well as to paraphrase some that were quoted verbatim.
(5) The methodology section lacks clarity and good style.
The way to correct this observation was to divide the methodology section into segments, add a paragraph where the use of indicators was justified, and justify why Anita Khon was used, which basically has to do with the non-existence of authors dealing with the subject.
(6) The conceptual discussion of regions as object and subject should be deepened and up to date. Here, as in many parts of the paper, the references are not very recent. There is also a lack of discussion of other authors on that matter.
Due to the lack of other authors who approach the discussion with the same focus as Anita Khon does, the discussion is restricted to what this author mentions, which is mentioned in the methodology. On the other hand, more recent authors are cited such as Pasquito and Miguel, and Baer.
(7) Abstract could be improved.
The way to remedy this observation was to expand and improve the abstract. On the one hand, some results were added, and the two most important events in contemporary history were defined in more detail.
(8) See also my notes on the other file.
The way to remedy this observation was:
- By adding the pages of quotations.
- By correcting the marked margins.
- By attending to the rest of the corrections indicated above.
(9) I would suggest a better explanation of the methodological choices.
This has already been answered in previous comments
(10) The definition and separation between object and subject should be done on the basis of the literature.
This has already been answered in previous comments.
(11) The paper has a lot of statements (see the file with some comments) unsubstantiated either by data or research. This paper lacks references to data and to recent theoretical and empirical research on Angola.
This has already been answered in previous comments.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The matter of regional vs. urban-rural raised in the original reviewer's comments needs to be addressed. If the paper is about urban-rural (rather than comparing across provinces), then this needs to be stated explicitly.
Author Response
To whom it may concern:
The team of researchers who wrote the article in question would like to thank you for your time and professionalism in reviewing it. The following is a response to each of the comments submitted in the second review:
The matter of regional vs. urban-rural raised in the original reviewer's comments needs to be addressed. If the paper is about urban-rural (rather than comparing across provinces), then this needs to be stated explicitly.
In the section, "Social Indicators for Understanding Inequalities and Asymmetries in the National Territory," for a better understanding of inequalities in rural and urban areas, a paragraph based on Kanyenze's text is added, where it is argued that the indicators that best explain the inequalities between provinces are urban-rural because, after colonialism and the war, development was concentrated in urban areas (especially the province of Luanda), marking a huge difference with the rural areas, characteristic of the other provinces.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I have read this new version.
It is improved on several counts.
I continue to think that there should be recent references in the text, from 2017 to now that would improve the argument of the authors.
A final revision is needed.
Author Response
To whom it may concern:
The team of researchers who wrote the article in question would like to thank you for your time and professionalism in reviewing it. The following is a response to each of the comments submitted in the second review:
(1) I continue to think that there should be recent references in the text, from 2017 to now that would improve the argument of the authors.
More current references were introduced from the World Bank, the United Nations Development Program, and Kanyenze –a prominent author on the social field in Africa- on State Development in Southern Africa.
(2) A final revision is needed.
* The inequality indicators were updated in the section, "Social Indicators for Understanding Inequalities and Asymmetries in the National Territory."
* An explanation of the investments made in Luanda in the last period was added to the section "Public Investments in Angola."
* In the section, "Inequalities and Asymmetries. Its Evolution from the Colonial Era to the Beginning of the Civil War," a reference to coffee exports and the prosperity of the coffee-growing provinces was added.
* In the introduction, the HDI and Gini index values were updated.
* In the section, "Social Indicators for Understanding Inequalities and Asymmetries in the National Territory," for a better understanding of inequalities in rural and urban areas, a paragraph based on Kanyenze's text is added, where it is argued that the indicators that best explain the inequalities between provinces are urban-rural because, after colonialism and the war, development was concentrated in urban areas (especially the province of Luanda), marking a huge difference with the rural areas, characteristic of the other provinces.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
