Fiscal Decentralization and the Human Development Index: A Cross-Border Empirical Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Thank you for considering my suggestions. I look forward to seeing your paper published
English syntax is ok
Author Response
Thank you so much for your valuable comments and suggestions!
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
Dear Authors,
I have read with a great deal of interest your research. Please consider the following suggestions:
Expressions lasting from replacing bibliographic sources as “since it was first proposed” should be replaced
How did you avoid bias in regard to your database? Is the statistical approach ( sufficient for credible results) the best choice? Please motivate.
Was the hypothesis validated? Please create a discussion section where the hypothesis and results are discussed in the light of previous literature results on the matter;
Please discuss theoretical implications, practical implications and future developments.
Best regards,
Dear authors,
The manuscript is well written. There are considerably few english language mistakes than within the initial version. Please check the manuscript without tracking changes in order to correct minor errors resulted after working with the references.
Best regards,
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable comments!
Please see the attachment.
Best regards!
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
Dear Authors,
Thank you for your reply. The manuscript has greatly improved its quality. However, for such an extensive study, and i am sure that you will agree, the literature review and the number of cited bibliographic resources is inconsistent and needs further improvements.
Moreover, on the sections added within the last review, the expressions used appear as a reply to someone s comments and do not have much scientifical value. Please revise the language in accordance to the academic soundness that is required for such an manuscript.
Once this issue is solved, I congratulate you for your work.
Best regards,
English language does not require major improvements
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Dear authors,
In view of the changes made, I am of the opinion that the paper should be published, as it is clearly better than the first version.
Regards
Author Response
Thank you so much！
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. English syntax is very poor and has to improve throughout the document, starting in the abstract
2. In pg 2, middle paragraph, the authors state that there may be a humped-shaped relationship between fiscal dec and national development and note that no one has empirically tested said relationship. But then they begin to analyze the works by Lockwood, Janeba and Wilson, Jin and Martinez Vazquez, and Thiessen and one is led to believe that these authors have analyzed a variation of the authors’ hypothesis, yet none of them deal with anything related to the topic of the paper. This may reflect the very poor English language structure throughout the paper – at any rate, the authors need to connect their hypothesis with previous work in a much clearer way
3. Instead of ‘literatures’ the authors should use ‘previous articles’ or ‘previous papers’
4. Quebec separatism? I think the authors mean the separatist movement in Quebec
5. The literature review should include some recent related works, including Bojanic and Collins (2021) Differential effects of decentralization on income inequality: evidence from developed and developing countries; Liu, Gong and Song (2022) Like the new and hate the old: The impact of fiscal decentralization on regional development strategy; and Canare (2020) Decentralization and Development Outcomes: What Does the Empirical Literature Really Say?
6. Secondary school enrollment rate is used as a regressor, but doesn’t the HDI already capture education as one of its three core components?
7. So the hump-shaped relationship is reflected in the negative coefficient for dec^2? The authors need to explain with much greater clarity why this is significant. Isn’t this type of correlation normal with many other variables? (e.g., the longer fiscal decentralization exists in a particular country, the smaller the marginal impact of decentralization on many different outcomes)
8. Related to point 7, I am still unclear about what a ‘moderate level of fiscal decentralization’ is. The authors need much greater accuracy with this. Would they advocate for an expenditure ratio (regional exp/national exp) greater than 20, 30, 40 but less than 50? What exactly is the meaning of moderate?
Author Response
please see the attached WORD file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
I have read with a great deal of interest your manuscript. Despite its visible strong points, it needs some adjustments. Please consider the following suggestions.
Please revise the abstract in regard to grammatical and punctuation, but also in regard to its scientific soundness. It appears like fragmented.
Please revise the citation style in accordance with the Journal requirements.
Please revise the English level of the manuscript; in text there are many phrases without logic” Moreover, the theory of optimal decentralization supported by some empirical studies” and where grammar problems appear. Here is another example “that needs to be empirically examined but has not been examined.”
Literature review should provide the research hypotheses, along with a previous literature support; this part is missing from the current manuscript.
Within the Results section, please add relevant literature in regard to the thresholds that you use. Who else reached to similar results, why this result subscribes to that threshold?
The results are insufficiently discussed and should be considered in the light of previous literature.
Are the hypotheses in(validated)? Which ones? Please provide a table and a discussion in this regard, all supported by previous literature results.
Study limitations and future research are missing.
The literature is insufficient.
Does the state of your statistical analysis suffice given the size and the importance of your database? Please motivate.
Overall, the text (both on literature review/analysis/results/discussion are insufficiently developed.
Best regards,
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for considering my suggestions. The English syntax still needs to be revised and improved in the entire document, but I am satisfied with what you've done and will recommend publication as is
Author Response
Thank you!
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
Almost all of my suggestions were not heeded. Your concern was to look for arguments not to consider them, arguments that I do not consider valid. This fact is strange.
However, in order to issue a more consistent opinion, I request that the journal send me the database in excel.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer Thank you for your comments! We couldn't share our data at this stage. The first reason is that our team finished 2 papers on similar topic with the same database. One of the 2 papers has submitted to the your journal Sustainability, namely this paper (ID: sustainability-2241121) edited by you. And the other one is titled "fiscal decentralization and sustainable development". The 2 papar are all born from a working paper of our team. That working paper is unofficially published in the International Center for Public Policy, Georgia State University (please see the attachment, and check it). So we couldn't share the data until the two papers are officially published. Secondly, the database includes some unique data which is not allowed to be shared, namely our crucial instrumental variable GFI. The data for the GFI are acquired from NASA’s Earth Observing System Data and Information System (EOSDIS) hosted by the Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN) at Columbia University. I couldn't send this data to other persons without permission. Thank you for your understanding！ If there's any further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. With warm regards, Jin