The Practice of Soft Power

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have read the article and I found it well-written and well-researched.

The only problem I had with it was a lack of context. There needs to be a minimum of four paragraphs giving a brief history of Ottoman control of the Balkans and the bitter fight of the Balkan nations for independence from the Ottoman Empire in the 19th century.

Consequently, there is a legacy of distrust of Turkey by these countries some of whom see the residual Moslem communities in the Balkans as a potential fifth column for Turkey, especially since Erdogan came to power.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Author(s)

It was enjoyable to read your well-researched paper. There was a sense in the second part of the paper when you were describing the 'war' in the Balkans between the two competing political ideologies to perhaps link those empirical findings more overtly with the academic literature. Whether it would be literature on alignment between donors and recipients, or another theoretical framework is up to the authors. But aid conditionality is not new, with the EU's tied aid practices, for example, being one of the best cases of that practice globally. Similarly, Turkey is using its presence and actorness in the Balkans to exert demands on the aid recipients which are regarding alignment with its own interests in that region. A couple of additional comments: 

1. line 121: define or provide a reference for further reading re: your comment about "Responsible Balkans power" - more qualification may be needed

2. line 124: are you using Constructivism? If so, state it earlier in your theoretical framework part. The sense here is that is it alluded to but not explicitly referenced. 

3. line 148 - symbolic power - more definition may be needed to clarity. 

4. The receptive policies by the recipient state e.g. non-restricting access to Turkish aid and influence may also be a factor at play. You have alluded to this trend but perhaps a more explicit recognition of the role of the state in the recipient domain might be useful. 

5. line 530: back to Tied aid argument - there is a lot of literature on this subject and is Turkey's behaviour any more 'new' in this regard? 

In terms of your interviews, and 82 is a lot of interviews, what other major themes run in those transcripts? You have identified 2 major themes, but is there anything else that could offer a contribution to the broader field of study found within this valuable material? 

All the best with minor revisions. This is a very good paper overall and I wish you well. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The text is interesting. The author may have paid more attention to regions such as Sandžak so the article would then address the issue in a more comprehensive way. Last access to referenced electronic sources is dated to May 2020, ie not exactly up to date one.

From a toponymical point of view, the names Gostivar and Tetovo should be used in their English variant, not in the Albanian one. (Gostivari (Гостивар) and Tetova (Tетово) 505/506). When quoating, the quatation marks are missing (309, 337... and so on). 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf