A Metafrontier Analysis on the Performance of Grain-Producing Regions in Norway

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Despite its merits, the paper is currently unbalanced, proving to be preliminary in several sections. The current material is of undoubted interest for the journal but, at the moment, it basically consists of modelling, methodology and results, leaving the other sections behind. I recommend addressing the following flaws before reconsidering the paper for publication.

 

• The first sentence is not unambiguous. Norway is abundant in fossil fuels. Why should the availability of fossil fuels be limited? Please make clear what is implied here.

 

• The third sentence in the introduction “Agricultural efficiency is a key contributor to the efficient use of resources and overall productivity growth in the Norwegian economy.” Has to be backed by a reference. Please refer to a resource other than Alem et al. (2019).

 

• To emphasize the topicality of the present study and the importance of agriculture for an oil-rich country such as Norway the authors should refer additionally to the theoretical and empirical inquiry:
  • Sadik-Zada, Loewenstein and Hasanli (2019), Commodity Revenues, Agricultural Sector and the Magnitude of Deindustrialization: A Novel Multisector Perspective, Economies 2019, 7(4), 113; https://doi.org/10.3390/economies7040113 .

 

• Please explain what is “iid”. It could be unclear to the readership of ECONOMIES.

 

• Methodological section 2 is very well written and makes the central elements of the empirical model clear. At the end of the section the author makes a direct citation of Battese “According to Battese et al. (2004), ‘an increase in TGR implies a decrease in the gap between the region frontier and the meta-frontier’. Please reformulate the sentence with your own words.

 

• I suggest that the author combines sections 2 and 3 as one section. Section 3 is related to section 2 and is very short.

 

• It were enough if the author(s) would present just the pie diagram. The histogram is not necessary.

 

• Above all, the theoretical framework implemented deficits - that is a major flaw. A definition and explanation of the underlying dynamics and drivers shall be provided. The publications investigated are undoubtedly scarce as the introduction is. These shall be implemented with existing scholarship on the analysed topics. Utmost issues include framing rural development dynamics and sustainable food production - see:
  • Gatto, A., Polselli, N., & Bloom, G. (2016). Empowering gender equality through rural development: Rural markets and micro-finance in Kyrgyzstan. L’Europa e la Comunità Internazionale Difronte alle Sfide dello Sviluppo, 65-89.).
  • Agovino, M., Cerciello, M., & Gatto, A. (2018). Policy efficiency in the field of food sustainability. The adjusted food agriculture and nutrition index. Journal of environmental management, 218, 220-233.

 

• The case study of Norway shall be motivated and inserted in the existing literature. The same applies to the topic and methodology used. However, the empirical model also looks like a draft. The regions considered shall be spatially defined (perhaps according to NIBIO parameters). Otherwise, the data section is clear and sound and manages to underpin its contribution to the paper.

 

• The results are presented in a clear and understandable way. Nevertheless, the last section is too short. I suggest changing the title to Conclusions and Policy implications. Furthermore, this section has to be expanded and presented from the general perspective of a natural resource-rich economy, Norway. To this end please refer once again to Sadik-Zada et al. (2019). Conclusions and policy implications are almost missing. The authors would better build solid conclusions and implications of their study, highlighting the significance and added value of their research for the existing scholarly debate. Study limitations and prospect speculations shall be added in the analysis.

 

• Please, check for typos and formatting issues. The use of footnotes shall be avoided - the authors can implement short paragraphs for this, in particular for the standardisation technique that deserves some short comment (note 4).

Author Response

I thank the Referee for raising several important points and valuable comments, which significantly contributed to improving the manuscript. I have addressed all the points raised by him/her and have marked with blue the relevant corrections in the current version of the paper that has been applied to comply with his/her comments, as well as with those by Referee #1. The referee’s comments and my answers are marked in the following red and black, respectively. I believed that the paper has benefited a lot from working on the referees’ comments. Attached all the response and the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I recommend to improve the background of this research.
Similarly, I recommend that the author makes a better connection between the background and the results obtained.
In opinion, the paper needs two new section: first, a background section where the author includes the literature revision of this subject; second, a discussion section where the autor includes the relationship between his results and the previous results of the academic literature.

Author Response

I thank the Referee for raising several important points and valuable comments, which significantly contributed to improving the manuscript. I have addressed all the points raised by him/her and have marked with blue the relevant corrections in the current version of the paper that has been applied to comply with his/her comments, as well as with those by Referee #2. The referee’s comments and our answers are marked in the following red and black, respectively. I believed that the paper has benefited a lot from working on the referees’ comments. 

The answers to the referee and the revised manuscript attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The author managed to only sort some of the issues. The next review round deserves decisively additional attention. The presented manuscript employs meta-frontier approach for the assessment of the performance differences across Norwegian regions. The quantitative inquiry is predicated on the panel data set of 196 family farms in the time between 1996 and 2014. The paper has a nice structure and is based on a solid and innovative methodological fundament. Despite the significance of the results, the authors reveal also the limitations of the study well that are still present in the second review stage.

• the paper is still heavily unbalanced. It needs substantial improvement in the sections I've previously mentioned - besides the modelling, methodology and results.

 

• Importantly, the work is not inserted in the respective literature also due to the fact that the investigated references are scarce. As previously stated, please indicate what is your contribution to the literature. Indication of the difference from Battese et al. (2004) and Greene (2005b) does not make sense. You can refer to them only if these sources back you in detecting a thematical or methodological research gap.

 

• The introductory part delineates the importance of agriculture in the Norwegian context. The case study could be also interesting in the context of other countries, which have a substantial petroleum sector or try to diversify their economies. In this context, you could also mention Dutch disease as a possible source of lacking competitiveness of the Norwegian economy. In this context refer to Sadik-Zada et al. (2019). To delineate the significance of Norway and the group of oil and gas producing countries refer to Sadik-Zada & Gatto (2020).

 

• Norway fossil abundance is relevant and shall be at least mentioned in the pertinent paragraph.

 

• The importance of agriculture and agricultural policy shall be further investigated. Again, this and further sections are yet meagre. Also, it needs to be corroborated with additional references.

 

• “iid” shall be clearly stated.

 

• It is fine to keep sections 2 and 3 aside as long as the author corroborates them.

 

• As previously stated and as reported in the first review, the theoretical framework is not sufficient yet. The author has been provided with some possible related topics that naturally arise to the reader. He is not obliged to investigate those specific questions, yet the theoretical ground needs to respond to a number of additional issues. On this wavelength, the topics that have already been explored needs to get a thorough examination. A definition and explanation of the underlying dynamics and drivers shall be provided.

 

• The case study of Norway shall yet be motivated and inserted in the existing literature. The empirical model has yet to be improved.

 

• Don’t use Alem et al. (2019) for referring to this rather general common sense. I would recommend to skip any citation or to refer to one of the influential reports of FAO or other UN or institution.

 

• Add “and” after “creating more value-added;”

 

• r.t. the risk of pressures to cut back on border protection and output-related subsidies – refer to WTO or some other legal enquiry, or academic law paper. Better not to refer to Alem 2020.

 

• Try to avoid self-references.

 

• Stylistic mistakes and too many typos in the last two paragraphs of introduction. This issue has already been reported.

 

• Change the title of Section 6 to “Conclusion and Policy Implications”.

 

• Merge Table 3 and Table 4.

 

• The paper needs comprehensive proofreading.

 

Again, to date, the paper looks like a nice modelling exercise and that's it. The author has been provided with thorough recommendations, though little improvements have been done, unfortunately. I recommend the author to strive for addressing the reported issues first and - only if not possible - to write a (convincing) rebuttal. This is a necessary step to consider the paper for publication.

Author Response

I have attached my response. Thanks

Habtamu

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Congratulations

Author Response

Thanks

 

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Unfortunately, the author did not move significant steps forward to justify the publication of their work nor to substantially improve the paper. I am afraid they have only addressed 4 requests and the rebuttal of the remainder is not convincing in most of the cases. To be honest, clear comments have been provided in the two previous review rounds. Probably, linguistic limitations hold. Yet significant work is needed. I can only try to clarify a few points again.

 

• Again, it is not necessary to use the suggested references. Though the importance of putting your work within the scientific debate holds and is necessary. An author usually can grasp significant hints from those suggestions, which can dramatically improve their study. Even when a paper is extremely innovative, the author is required to review the closest literature on that topic/methodology/case study. Otherwise, the contribution stands aside to science. Probably, it would be worthy for the author to spend some time exploring diverse scholarly database and refining their research question. The presented reference list is not adequate for any type of scientific contribution.

 

• I appreciate the author has been using language software but, as stated twice, the paper needs native proofreading. Obviously, referees are not called for proofreading a paper.

 

• Again, the modelling is generally fine and interesting. Though this is an economic journal. We need a proper economic papers' structure and contribution.

 

Again, if the author wants to improve their paper, they shall try to invest some time on the review process, addressing the issues raised by the referees instead of disputing them. 

Author Response

I have included most of your suggestions so that the paper quality improves and clear for the journal readers. Thanks again!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf