Assessing the Effective Lower Bound in the Context of Introducing the Digital Euro

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see my comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are several typos throughout the manuscript that affect the quality of the paper. Please re-read the whole manuscript carefully.

Author Response

Please, see our response to reviewers’ comments in a special file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author provides an interesting analysis, with nice results based on original survey data. However, some points should be modified to improve the readability of the paper.

1. The deposits are dropped from the analysis without a real justification, nor is it discussed how their inclusion would modify the results. This has to be discussed (in sections 3 & 6).

2. there seems to be a contradiction between lines 166-169 and 189ff. Either the factors are considered or they are not, but it can't be both.

3. The framework described in section 3 is way too long. It can be shortened easily without any loss of substance. As the model is not solved / optimized, it is simply a framework that explains how the author has conceived the survey(s). Hence, going more directly to the tested expressions could be done in a more straightforward way.

3. Line 317ff.: I disagree with the author on the conditions to justify the setting : Canada or Australia would, in my view, fit the conditions. It is not fully clear if the choice to have the surveys on euro area citizens really has to be justified.

4. It is not really clear if a sample of 525 citizens can really be representative of the euro area as a whole. Even though the proportions for each country are respected, this does not ensure representativeness of the sample. (lines 360 ff.)

5. What does it mean that some respondents consider to have already shifted to CBDC while it does not exist? Shouldn't their responses be discarded as if they have not understood the content of the survey?

6. Precise if the respondents form survey 2 are part of the first sample or not.

7. The surveys (questionnaire) should be provided in a dedicated appendix, as it usual in this type of research. 

8. Computations in section 6.1 (and after) are not fully transparent: how can 38.29% of respondents correspond to 52.07% for the value of alpha?

9. Table 1 columns should be renamed: alpha (cash) ; (1 - alpha) (CBDC) for easier read of the table

10. Section 7 is relatively long and its added value to the paper is not clear. It may be dropped.

11. Given the presence of a section for discussion, the section for "conclusion" could be dropped (it is quite wordy and its messages are already present before)

Details:

line 29: typo: Yellen (not Yellen)

Change "chapter" for "section"

line 111: type: whether (not where)

line 226: typo: F(T,A) should be F(P,A)

line 340: missing word: with cryptocurrencies (instead of "to")

line 902: How have the surveys be funded?

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper is wordy, sentences are quite long, and the presentation of computations is somewhat hard to read.

Author Response

Please, see our response to reviewers’ comments in the special file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for working further on the paper.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are just a few minor details throughout the paper that I detected. I encourage you to double-check the manuscript once again before publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My suggestions have globally been taken into account.