Rural Development Projects in Latin America: The Need to Integrate Socio-Economic, Political, and Empowerment Lenses for Sustained Impact
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article discusses sustainable rural development in Latin America, focusing on the bottom-up approach. It explores agroecological practices and the development of small-scale agricultural enterprises as key elements for positive change. Several authors and studies supporting this perspective are cited, demonstrating the importance of agroecology and small-scale farming in sustainable development.
The document also includes references to articles and research examining the distribution of foreign aid, monitoring and evaluation practices of rural development projects, and the political and economic implications of rural development in Latin America. Additionally, it discusses the concept of "Buen Vivir" and its role in post-development, along with the need to reformulate public policies to embrace a more sustainable and inclusive approach to development.
Overall, the article provides a detailed overview of the challenges and opportunities in sustainable rural development in Latin America, emphasizing the importance of participatory and community-based approaches to effectively address these challenges.
One possible weakness of the article could be the lack of in-depth insights into specific case studies or concrete examples of success in implementing sustainable rural development practices in Latin America. Although the article provides a solid theoretical overview and cites various academic sources, it could benefit from placing more emphasis on empirical case studies to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed strategies.
Furthermore, the article could be improved by including a more thorough discussion of practical challenges and barriers to implementing sustainable rural development policies in Latin America.
The article could also benefit from a final section dedicated to the practical implications of its findings and recommendations for policymakers, development practitioners, and other stakeholders involved in implementing sustainable rural development policies and programs in Latin America. This could help bridge the gap between academic research and practitioners, facilitating greater applicability and impact of the knowledge presented in the article.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article offers a particular analysis of rural development initiatives in Latin America. While the continuance of serious poverty levels is surprising due to significant foreign aid investment in rural areas, the problem with such an approach is a focus on separate items of projects analysis and implementation. The research demonstrates that rural development processes and outcomes are complex. At the same time, examining those outcomes have been missing a few integrated elements since researchers apply only the socio-economic, political or empowerment perspective without combining them together. This paper’s most vital contribution is its effort to bridge these analytical streams by drawing on insights from various perspectives. Through this comprehensive approach, the authors attempt to provide a more complete picture of what influences the successfulness or failure of development projects. This approach is praising, especially since it uncovers factors that had previously gone unnoticed and enables a deeper examination of the issues that development intervention inherently begets. Local participation and empowerment are crucial for achieving sustainable development outcomes. In this way, the article calls for rural people to be given a seat at the holistic approach to development. Even though the paper properly delineates the major issues and concerns, it lacks specific examples or case studies that would help to support its argument better. Inclusion of practical cases would justify the intended appropriateness and feasibility of the model and help the reader see what the concepts would translate into in practice. The paper could also speculate about the possible approaches and advice to make rural development projects in Latin America more successful. The discussion meets the main objectives, but no policy implications or practical advice are provided to the policymakers, practitioners or researchers to enhance the development practice.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for the opportunity to review this conceptual paper on rural development in Latin America. Rural development is an important and often ignored topic, and more work here is definitely welcome.
To strengthen this paper, however, I feel there is a need to more clearly articulate the paper's goals and better connect different sections together. There were many moments, especially when a new (sub)section began that I found myself wondering 'where are you going with this?' - there is a lack of a clear through-line or flow in the text that drastically minimises the impact of the paper. In the end, this leads to a concept that is not clearly connected to previous sections or the main topic of rural development.
I provide further section-by-section comments below.
Introduction
The introduction is generally coherent, yet it does not clearly tell the reader what the goals of the text are nor how you will achieve those goals. You should clearly state your goals directly in the text and explain how the manuscript will proceed.
The first paragraph needs clear sourcing/citations to support claims, not just endnotes.
Foreign Aid
As with most sections, it is not clear why or how this part contributes to the goals of the text, as those goals are not clearly articulated in-text.
It is not clear where you obtain your numbers for foreign aid. Use clear in-text citations.
Provide sources to support your statements about the 'limited engagement in rural areas'
Use a simpler term than 'biunivocally'
Rural Development
How this section connects to the previous one and contributes to the overall text should be made clearer.
Your statement about an 'established Theory of Change' is confusing? What ToC, and established by whom?
If you are to emphasise terms in italics, then I think you need to briefly define how you define and contrast integration/incorporation. In other fields of social/political science, these terms can be understood quite differently.
The transition between land reform and talking about ToCs is abrupt and loses the reader. It is also not clear how this topic is of specific relevance to your focus on Rural Development.
The subsequent sub-sections (regional context, rural development, economic perspective, etc.) suffer from the same limitation. How they contribute to the paper and how they are connected together is poorly articulated. I feel like I am reading a review of disparate topics as opposed to a connected piece of work. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that many paragraphs start with direct references to authors and their work. You refer, and defer, to other work significantly, but this is a concept paper! You need to insert your thoughts and analysis throughout, and make it clear to the reader where you are going.
Conclusion
Though the goal of developing a new conceptual approach, I am concerned by the lack of clarity in terms of how the previous analysis fits into this. Furthermore, how this concept is specifically applicable to the rural context is unclear to me. Many discussions in the previous sub-sections address generic development topics (ToCs, introduction to economic section). For this concept to have value, its connection to the different sections and to rural development need to be much sharper.
Other
The extensive use of endnotes distracts from the paper. Either use citations or mention information in-text or remove endnotes.
Ensure that citations and references are in journal style.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Minor proofing required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author(s) in the abstract state that their paper "synthesizes and critically evaluates key aspects that influence the sustained impact of rural development projects across [..] three [socio-economic and political lenses, the intrinsic characteristics of projects, levels of empowerment and local participation] analytical streams" in Latin America. However, the paper lacks clear focus: no objectives and aim of the study are defined, no research questions can be found either in the introduction or other parts of the paper. If this is meant as a pure literature review, still the research methodology must be presented (how information sources were selected for the analysis, what methods were used for analysis, etc.). Information about and analysis of the topic is quite superficial and fragmented, because of absence of clear focus. In some figures and also places in the text only few Latin American countries are mentioned, while in other figures there are data about whole region. Therefore, geography of the study is not clear. Maybe entire Latin America is too large area for the study? In spite of the information that the authors try to provide about some countries in more detailed way, the readers are not provided with the comprehensive and in-depth analysis about rural development policies, specifics of rural issues/problems, rural development priorities and projects in each country.
No research methodology is provided. Conclusions should not comprise figures and graphs, only text.
Legend in the Figure 1 must be clarified (please indicate all funding sources in full words, not abbreviations).
The paper should be heavily improved and first of all the main focus should be defined.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Author(s),
thank you for your submitting your research. However, I do believe that your paper must be improved to be published. Please find my following suggestions:
1. Please provide the structure of your concept paper in the Introduction part. Why there are certain parts in the paper and what insights do they give to the existing knowledge.
2. Please justify the neediness of the Part 2 (2. Foreign aid: a snapshot of a historical perspective). What does it bring to the overall picture? I do believe it would be a good idea to present that in the beginning of this section.
3.Why the Part 3 is called Rural development projects, as you talk there about so many different things? Could you justify your choice of subsections in this part?
4. Please provide an elaborated explanation of Theory of Change framework, as now you are using the concept, but it is not presented in the paper.
5. I also want you to pay attention to used literature as it is really old and, in some cases, outdates. It would be good for your paper to renew the literature as well.
6. I suggest avoiding diagrams in Conclusion part and please revise the conclusions.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Language is fine.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
Thank for your revisions and responses. However, the substance of my comments have not been meaningfully addressed here beyond a few cosmetic additions in the introduction/discussion.
The sub-sections (regional context, rural development, economic perspective, etc.) still suffer from the limitation of being rather disjointed How they contribute to the paper and how they are connected together is poorly articulated. They jump from topics like agriculture to discussions of concept like 'buen vivir' without any clear thread connecting them. As I said, I feel like I am reading a review of disparate topics as opposed to a connected piece of work. Yet, as a concept paper, I would argue it is incumbent on you to need to insert your thoughts and analysis throughout, and make it clear to the reader where you are going with your conceptual arguments. This still feels like a bunch of components smushed together.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish generally fine - minor proofing recommended.
Author Response
Thank you for your constructive comments. We understand your point. We have revised the text to better clarify the nexus among the sections and the formulation of the integrated approach proposed in Section 6.
The two components of this approach, schematically illustrated in Figures 10 and 11, shed light on critical factors for each perspective and demonstrate how these perspectives organize, articulate, and define the potential sustained impact of a project. Sections 2 through 5 are designed and structured to inform these twofold objectives and are essential as they feed into the definition of the comprehensive approach. Additional paragraphs have been introduced in each sub-section to highlight the most relevant information considered in proposing the comprehensive approach. Moreover, the focus of the paper has been further clarified in the introduction
Section 6 has been slightly reorganized, and additional paragraphs were included to better elaborate and bridge the sections, facilitating a clearer understanding of the contribution of sections 2 through 5 and enhancing the contextualized reading of the chapter.
With these adjustments, we are confident that the connection between the initial sub-sections and its contribution to the manuscript's objectives are now clear.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn general, the author(s) have included some improvements in their paper and clarified some aspects. However, also the concept paper should comprise a clear aim and tasks defined in the introduction what is still missing even though the author(s) have clarified the focus of their study. Still information about and analysis of the topic is very broad. The readers still are missing an in-depth analysis about rural development policies, specifics of rural issues/problems, rural development priorities and projects in specific countries.
Conclusions are revised and improved. The author(s) state that "This paper offers a critical review of the subject, drawing from three prevalent perspectives: context, project design, and community participation". I do not completely agree with this, as analysis of the community participation aspect is weak.
Author Response
Thank you for your constructive comments. We understand your point. We have revised the text to better clarify the nexus among the sections and the formulation of the integrated approach proposed in Section 6. The Introduction has been revised to clearly state now both the focus and the objective of the study. The comprehensive approach we propose integrates three perspectives, demonstrating how they collectively contribute to and potentially define the long-term impact of development projects. Additionally, we have identified a set of critical factors for each perspective, which will be further articulated and thoroughly analyzed in subsequent phases of the research.
Sections 2 through 5 are designed and structured to inform these twofold objectives and are essential as they feed into the definition of the comprehensive approach. Additional paragraphs have been introduced in each sub-section to highlight the most relevant information considered in proposing the comprehensive approach. Section 6 has been slightly reorganized, and additional paragraphs were included to better elaborate and bridge the sections, facilitating a clearer understanding of the contribution of sections 2 through 5 and enhancing the contextualized reading of the chapter. The modifications introduced in the manuscript help clarifying that an in-depth analysis of rural development policies, specific rural issues/problems, and rural development priorities and projects in specific countries is beyond the scope of this paper; in fact, the framework and findings presented here aim at being a valuable foundation for such future research.
With these adjustments, we are confident that the connection between the initial sub-sections and its contribution to the manuscript's objectives are now clear.
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe concept paper is sufficiently improved and can be published.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Thank you for your comment. We were attentive to language and grammar editing.
