Entrepreneurship Dynamics: Assessing the Role of Macroeconomic Variables on New Business Density in Euro Area
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The article's introduction seems well-structured and provides a thorough context for the study, touching upon various dimensions of entrepreneurship from both micro and macro perspectives. It introduces the central theme of the research, which is examining the influence of macroeconomic and political factors on entrepreneurship in the Euro area. The introduction also acknowledges prior research in the field, illustrating how the study aims to contribute to existing literature.
Specific References: While the introduction mentions prior studies, it could be strengthened by specifying seminal works or theories in the field on which the study is built.
Gap in Literature: It would be beneficial to explicitly state what gap in the literature the study aims to fill. This would provide more justification for the study's significance.
Geographical Scope: Since the study focuses on the Euro area, briefly mentioning why this geographical scope is important or relevant could provide more context.
Clarity on Variables: While the study discusses financial and political determinants, more clarity or a brief overview of the specific variables could be useful.
Limitations: A mention of what the study does not cover could set proper expectations for the reader.
The panel data methodology aligns well with the temporal and cross-sectional nature of the study, which aims to investigate the impact of selected financial, political, and institutional factors on entrepreneurship across 19 countries in the Euro area from 2006 to 2020. While the section describes the methods and variables in detail, it could be strengthened by explicitly discussing any assumptions made and limitations in the methodology. The methods section could benefit from outlining any goodness-of-fit tests or other statistical measures that will be used to evaluate the model's adequacy. It's not clear if any control variables are used to account for other factors that might influence entrepreneurship. This could be a potential oversight.
The model includes an error term broken down into unobservable individual effects, time effects, and a generic error term. While this is specified in the equation, a little more explanation about why this error term is used could add clarity.
The results are displayed in a clear, concise manner. Descriptive statistics are presented for dependent and independent variables, offering a comprehensive understanding of the dataset’s characteristics. Using tables effectively summarizes the statistics and model estimations, making it easier for the reader to grasp the findings.
The discussion also contains a comparative analysis with previous research, particularly the work of Kar and Özsahin, which adds depth to the results. It provides a context within which the study's findings can be evaluated.
The conclusions drawn are well-supported by the results. They provide clear insights into the factors that significantly influence entrepreneurship in the euro area. The statistically significant variables are highlighted, and their real-world implications are discussed.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
we greatly appreciate your dedicated review of this manuscript. Please find our comprehensive responses and the corresponding amendments highlighted in the resubmitted files.
We trust that these revisions will improve the clarity and comprehensibility of our study. Your input has been invaluable, and we thank you for your constructive feedback.
Sincerely,
The Authors of the Manuscript
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
In the Abstract it is mentioned that the research objective is ,,This article examines the role of the financial stability of the macroenvironment on enterprises in euro-area countries over the period 2006-2020”. Then, also in Abstract, the objective is ,,The article examines the relationship between entrepreneurship and some financial factors (financial development index, gross domestic product, inflation rate, unemployment rate, public debt), the relationship between entrepreneurship and political and institutional factors (government effectiveness index, regulatory quality index, rule of law, market capitalization of company, control of corruption, political stability and absence of violence)”. A research has only one objective and, if necessary, several sub-objectives. The novelty and importance of research does not result from the Abstract.
The keywords should be rearranged because their position need to express the relevance they have. Some of them appear a few times in the article body. Theoretically, they cannot be keywords.
Business development is affected by many factors. I suggest you more attention at expression.
Introduction does not apply. It seems rather a Literature Review than an Introduction.
It is much emphasis on entrepreneurship definition (from my point of view).
I suggest you split the Literature Review (to structure it according to the main research concepts or hypotheses (it would not be bad to have research hypotheses).
I suggest you explain why you have only carried out the analysis on the Eurozone and not on all Member States. It would also be advisable to explain why the timeframe stops in 2020.
Taking into account that your dependent variable is new business density and it is defined ,,the number of newly registered firms, in which ownership liability is limited to its investment, per calendar year, normalized by adult population”, the title of your paper is not so adequate. The research objective is not well chosen (whichever of the two).
What kind of Panel Data have you applied: Fixed Effects/Random Effects/Pooled Effects and why?
You have 6 variables that are not statistically significant. Your analysis seems to be made with 1% level of significance. You need to show the results for 5% level of significance. Also, table 3 needs to be completed with Std. Err. and Confidence Intervals. Furthermore, I recommend adding panel heteroscedasticity and serial correlation tests. This is why I suggest you develop the method carefully. A robustness analysis is necessary.
The results are insufficiently explained.
The conclusions are not complete. The novelty and usefulness of the research are missing.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2,
We extend our sincere gratitude for your thorough review of our manuscript. Your insights and recommendations have played a crucial role in enhancing the quality of our work. We have diligently addressed your comments and incorporated the necessary changes, which we believe have strengthened the overall content and presentation of the manuscript. You can review these modifications in detail in the attached document.
Your thoughtful feedback has been invaluable to us, and we are grateful for your time and expertise in reviewing our research.
Warm regards,
The Authors of the Manuscript
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This study examines the determinants of entrepreneurship in the state level. I agree with the authors' arguments that we need to investigate the differences of entrepreneurship across countries. And this study can provide some evidence how we can generalize the factors affecting entrepreneurship. However, for publication, there are some opportunities to be consider. Let me discuss these points.
1. Definition of entrepreneurship
The thorough review of entrepreneurship is one of the strengths of this paper. However, it is not clear how this paper particularly define entrepreneurship. Some scholars look at entrepreneurship as a process while other scholars consider the concept as an activity. Since these ontological artifacts should be differentiated, the authors may want to clarify what definition this study actually takes.
2. Research motivation
The research motivation is not explicit and sometimes vague. Why do we need to compare the concepts appearing in different countries? Why do we have to look at european countries only? Why the macro-level determinants of entreprenuership should be specified? The authors may want to answer these questions to clarify their research motivation of this study.
3. Hypotheses
It is a bit surprized that I cannot find any main arguments of this study (i.e. hypothese) before the method part appears. The authors may want to build up hypotheses and provide sound rationales for the arguments.
4. Methods
Since the dependent variable is a count variable, the estimation model could be a possion (or negative binomial) model. Perhaps the results will not be shaken in the different estimation model, I believe, but the authors could clarify the strategies they employed for the empirical analyses.
Those are my comments. Hope these help to develop such a potential work.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3,
We want to express our heartfelt appreciation for your diligent assessment of our manuscript. Your meticulous examination of our work has been instrumental in refining its content and structure. We have carefully considered your suggestions and implemented the recommended improvements, which we believe have significantly contributed to the manuscript's overall quality. You can review these changes in detail in the attached document.
Your expertise and valuable feedback have been of great assistance to us, and we are thankful for your commitment to reviewing our research.
Best regards,
The Authors of the Manuscript
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear Authors,
You brought some improvements to the work. Not all suggestions were taken into account. However, I recommend that you move the justification of the analyzed period and the reason why you opted for the Euro Zone to the Methodology (to the description of the indicators).
