Why Has Trade Barely Moved Sub-Saharan Africa to Its Economic Potential?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

thank you for the oportunity to read your work. It is an interesting paper that talks about the sub-Saharan African economies' oportunity, or lack thereof, to move to their economic potential. The economic potential in this paper is connected with the rise in international trade. The authors provide an overview of  sub-Saharan Africa's trade performance, compare sub-Saharan  Africa's income with those of Asia, Americas, Oceania's and Europe's as well as shares in manufacturing. 

The paper is interesting. However, there are a few shortcomings that need  to be addressed before the paper is published:

- Please state whether figures 1, 2 and 3 give an indication of real or nominal values.

- on page 1 provide percentage change in per capita income for each region between 1970 and 2021. 

- on page 4 you talk about the small and shrinking share of manufacturing. Please elaborate on it in a few paragraphs and explain the importance of manufacturing for sub-Saharan Africa. Namely, there might be a specific industry that is important, or extraction of raw materials or the Dutch disease that is making sub-Saharan Africa relativelly poor compared to other global regions. 

- please state the research question in the Introductory section. Thereforth, please explicate the argument in each part of the paper accordingly. 

- Theoretical model is a mish mash of a lot of models not following a straight logical argument. 

- stationarity of the variables in section 3 is not checked. 

- which software has been used to test the hypotheses? 

- what exactly are the hypotheses? how do you compare the sub-Saharan African countries to other global regions? or is the paper solely focused on Sub-Saharan African countries and then it needs to be rephrased, arguments need to be also logically coherent. 

- there are a whole set of tests on tha validity of the model that need to be assessed that are not. 

English is fine but the logical arguments need to be improved.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for the constructive comments. I have revised the manuscript accordingly and indicated all changes in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

To my knowledge, the work that was conducted addresses the central question posed in the paper. The paper is adequately referenced with all the cited references being relevant to the research. Moreover, the modelling techniques and the adopted methodology are the appropriate. However, there are some detected issues mainly regarding the utilized data, the presentation of the results and the “conclusions” part. 

Particularly:

- Lines 65-69: Check the numbering of the sections, for instance there is not section 5.1.

- Data description: Please explain explicitly the source of international trade data. Moreover, which classification did you use in order to describe the manufacturing sector (Harmonized system, SITC etc.)? Indicate also the digits of classification and the level of analysis (one digit, two digits, ……).

- Empirical findings: It would be beneficial for the quality of the research to compare your proposed method to those mentioned in the introduction section. Additionally, it could be beneficial also to compare your results to those of similar studies.

- Empirical findings: I feel that you should look for alternative ways to visualize the data of figure 6. The reader is left confused.

- The conclusions’ section needs elaboration. Since you have available many results for analysis you should emphasize to the outcome of policy or to the direction of potential implications derived from the study. In this section you should provide to the reader a clear message derived from the study. For instance, in lines 13-15 of the abstract you mention “This result has important policy implications going forward given the region’s ongoing wave of de-industrialization”. What is the outcome of policy?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for taking your time reviewing my article. I appreciate. Your comments were constructive and considered all of them in my revised manuscript. You may track the changes from the attached document under reviewer 2.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Over all I can say that I am satisfied with the article, only thing that author could do is to make one graph/scheme in which the can better explain the methods they used. The graph/scheme in which you would have a whole overview on the used methods.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for providing encouraging comments to my manuscript. I took your suggestion and incorporated into the manuscript as indicated under reviewer 3 of the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

 

Dear Authors,

Some of the detected issues have been addressed successfully and some others not or disregarded. Hence, I consider that there is still room for further improvement.  Particularly:

1. I recommend transferring the figures (15 & 16) from conclusion section to the section of empirical findings or in an annex. It is not usual to include figures and tables in this section. Try to support your conclusions in a narrative way.

2. The paper can benefit from a summary or a brief overview of the main findings at the beginning of the conclusion section. This would help provide a roadmap for the reader to understand the subsequent discussion.

3. The conclusion doesn't currently suggest any clear direction for future research or how this work could be built upon. Pointing out possible next steps or posing new questions that arose from your research can help set the stage for further investigations.

4. Empirical findings: I feel that you should look for alternative ways to visualize the data of figure 13 (6 in the previous version). The reader is left confused. For instance, you can replace the numbering with the name of the SSA country or try to visualize the information in a different format of figure.

I wish you again all the best in your revisions and improving your manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your time.  All your comments were valuable and insightful. They have been taken into account as indicated in yellow within the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

To my knowledge all the detected issues have been addressed successfully.