The Impact of Transformational Changes on the Socio-Economic Conditions of the Rural Population. An Example of Poland

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting paper that involved a lot of research. However, the discussion seems to be lacking that basic premise that those who have been under state runs systems generally continue to rely on them even as ownerships change.  Yes there is good "research" in the paper but it seems to be confirming what most expect to be true.  A much more interesting take would be the "why".  Some discussion of this would greatly strengthen the paper. However I still enjoyed the paper very much. 

Author Response

The Reviewer 1:

Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions that allowed us to improve our article. The changes and fragments added to manuscript are marked in yellow. The text fragments that have been only moved without changes, compared to the original version of the article, are marked in green.

 Comment 1:

This is an interesting paper that involved a lot of research. However, the discussion seems to be lacking that basic premise that those who have been under state runs systems generally continue to rely on them even as ownerships change.  Yes there is good "research" in the paper but it seems to be confirming what most expect to be true.  A much more interesting take would be the "why".  Some discussion of this would greatly strengthen the paper. However I still enjoyed the paper very much.

We agree with the comments of the Reviewer and therefore in the revised article, part 2. Literature Review (lines 93-114), we explained why the socio-economic situation in rural areas, including former state-owned farms, is worse than in urban areas. Also, in part 5. Discussion, a paragraph was added (lines 573-591) in which it was once again emphasized what is the cause of problems of the population living in rural areas.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

I understand your efforts behind this research, which is quite interesting, with great amount of results, with an original approach and good quality of writing and scientific soundness. However, there are some parts that should be revised (containing typing errors, redundant information, or which need completion) and other that should be added as far as possible.

 

• The abstract contains a redundant information, in line 14 and in line 18.

Line 14: the economic situation of households is still worse than in the areas where there were no State Agricultural Enterprises

Line 18: households' economic situation is worse than in areas where there were no State Agricultural Enterprises

I suggest removing the second one, and rephrase the part where you say that the results confirm the hypothesis, in order to avoid redundancy.

 

• Also regarding abstract, there is a need for continuing this sentence in order to finish a comparison.

Moreover, in former state-owned farms, the total disposable income per 1 person is lower, and the funds…

Lower as compared to what?

 

• The introduction is quite long. Maybe it can be split into Introduction and Literature review, as this part (literature review) is missing from the paper. I suggest moving text from discussion, line 510-528 to literature review.

 

• The general impression on the research is that you do not aim to compare the economic situation of households from former state-own farms with the ones from areas where there were no state agricultural enterprises, in order to reveal that the situation is worse for the first ones. This impression arises from the fact that: (1) you are presenting results on three levels (voivodeships, poviats and communes) but no clearly mention which are those areas without state agricultural enterprises. (2) in fact, it really looks like a radiography of the situation determined by the collapse of the state agricultural enterprises at different levels of aggregation. (3) you are not providing the initial situation of areas with and without state-own farms in Poland.

 

• Within Results for poviats section, the following result is provided:

“The choropleth map in Fig. 2 shows that former state-owned farm areas are located mainly in poviats located in the north and west of Poland, i.e., in the following voivodeships: Zachodniopomorskie, Lubuskie, and Warmińsko-Mazurskie.”

The results for communes also show the same concentration, in north (north-west and north-east).

Is there any connection with the fact that the geography of this country, favored the development of farms in the north part? Is there any possibility to present at first the situation of state-own farms, as a map, at least for the voivodeship level and then the results? In this way, the reader would have the possibility to see the initial situation of the state-own farms and afterwards your results presenting the situation after PGR collapse.

• Please pay attention to what you announce in the abstract, and what the reader can find within the paper. For instance, in the abstract, line 15: Research in rural areas in Poland served as a case study. Within the paper, line 461: 100% urban (for the type of commune in W13). You actually say that there are three types of communes, urban, urban-rural and rural.

 

• Please, be careful, as you are using both voivodeship and voivodship.

 

Author Response

The Reviewer 2

Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions that allowed us to improve our article. The changes and fragments added to manuscript are marked in yellow. The text fragments that have been only moved without changes, compared to the original version of the article, are marked in green.

 Comment 1:

The abstract contains a redundant information, in line 14 and in line 18.

“Line 14: the economic situation of households is still worse than in the areas where there were no State Agricultural Enterprises”

“Line 18: households' economic situation is worse than in areas where there were no State Agricultural Enterprises”

I suggest removing the second one, and rephrase the part where you say that the results confirm the hypothesis, in order to avoid redundancy.

 Also regarding abstract, there is a need for continuing this sentence in order to finish a comparison.

“Moreover, in former state-owned farms, the total disposable income per 1 person is lower, and the funds…”

Lower as compared to what?

The abstract has been changed in line with the Reviewer's suggestions:

• the sentence from line 18 has been removed,
• the part of the summary that referred to the hypothesis was edited (lines 17-19),
• unfinished sentence was corrected (lines 21-23).

 

Comment 2:

The introduction is quite long. Maybe it can be split into Introduction and Literature review, as this part (literature review) is missing from the paper. I suggest moving text from discussion, line 510-528 to literature review.

As suggested by the Reviewer, the Introduction to the original version of the article was divided into two parts: 1. Introduction (lines 26-71) and 2. Literature review (lines 72-135).

 

Comment 3:

The general impression on the research is that you do not aim to compare the economic situation of households from former state-own farms with the ones from areas where there were no state agricultural enterprises, in order to reveal that the situation is worse for the first ones. This impression arises from the fact that: (1) you are presenting results on three levels (voivodeships, poviats and communes) but no clearly mention which are those areas without state agricultural enterprises. (2) in fact, it really looks like a radiography of the situation determined by the collapse of the state agricultural enterprises at different levels of aggregation. (3) you are not providing the initial situation of areas with and without state-own farms in Poland.

The authors realize that the article does not clearly compare the socio-economic situation of households from former state-owned farms with farms from areas where there were no state-owned agricultural enterprises. However, even without the division into two separate groups (it would be possible only at the level of communes: communes with state farms and communes without state farms), it was possible to identify interesting regularities characterizing the socio-economic situation of the population in rural areas in Poland (with with particular emphasis on former state-owned farms), which differs significantly from the situation of the population in other areas. The authors drew attention to this aspect of the research at the end of the article, in the Summary, and adopted it as a contribution to further research in this area (lines 673-679). The revised version also explained that state-owned farms operated in Poland in all types of communes (urban, urban-rural, rural), with most of them operating in rural communes (lines 420-422). Adding this information in this part is justified by the fact that only at this level of aggregation we can clearly indicate in which communes operated or not state-owned farms. At the level of voivodeships and poviats, there always were at least a few communes in which state-owned farms have operated. In order to clearly indicate the intensity of the phenomenon under study, i.e. the occurrence of state-owned farms, they were showed on the maps in Figs. 1, 2 and 4.

 

Comment 4:

Within Results for poviats section, the following result is provided:

“The choropleth map in Fig. 2 shows that former state-owned farm areas are located mainly in poviats located in the north and west of Poland, i.e., in the following voivodeships: Zachodniopomorskie, Lubuskie, and Warmińsko-Mazurskie.”

The results for communes also show the same concentration, in north (north-west and north-east).

Is there any connection with the fact that the geography of this country, favored the development of farms in the north part? Is there any possibility to present at first the situation of state-own farms, as a map, at least for the voivodeship level and then the results? In this way, the reader would have the possibility to see the initial situation of the state-own farms and afterwards your results presenting the situation after PGR collapse.

We agree with the above comments of the Reviewer and, in line with this suggestions, Fig. 1 has been changed - instead of the bar chart, a map with voivodeship names has been added, showing their differentiation according to the value of the indicator W₁. In addition, it was briefly explained, why the concentration of state-owned farms takes place in voivodeships located in the western and northern part of the country (lines 263-269).

 

Comment 5:

Please pay attention to what you announce in the abstract, and what the reader can find within the paper. For instance, in the abstract, line 15: “Research in rural areas in Poland served as a case study. Within the paper”, line 461: 100% urban (for the type of commune in W13). You actually say that there are three types of communes, urban, urban-rural and rural.

In line with the Reviewer's comment, line 15 in the abstract was corrected. In footnote of table 3 (lines 432-433), definitions of an urban, urban-rural and rural commune, according to the terminology used in Poland, were added.

 

Comment 6:

Please, be careful, as you are using both voivodeship and voivodship.

As suggested by the Reviewer, the translation of the word “województwo” in the article was standardized. The form  “voivodeship” was used.

 

Due to the corrections, 4 references have been added:

line 768:

40. Gorzelak, E. Polskie Rolnictwo w XX Wieku. Produkcja i Ludność.; Prace i Materiały; Warszawa, 2010;

lines 771-773:

42. GUS Ogólna Charakterystyka Systemów Rejestru. Rejestr TERYT Available online: https://eteryt.stat.gov.pl/eTeryt/rejestr_teryt/ogolna_charakterystyka_systemow_rejestru/ogolna_charakterystyka_systemow_rejestru.aspx?contrast=default (accessed on 23 April 2021).

lines 803-806:

57. Nowak, T.; Pokropek, A.; Rogaczewska, M.; Urbanik, A. Rynki Pracy Na Obszarach Popegeerowskich. Załącznik 2a: Monografia Powiatu Bytowskiego ; Warszawa, 2008;
58. Liwiński, J.; Sztanderska, U.; Giza – Poleszczuk, A. Rynki Pracy Na Obszarach Popegeerowskich. Raport z Badań.; Warszawa, 2008;

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

I am aware of your effort to apply all suggested changes. Thank you so much for additional explanations on fourth and fifth comments, it is clear to my now. 

My final recommendation is of acceptance and further publication. Good luck with your research!