Would Kazakh Citizens Support a Milk Co-Operative System?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

KZ dairy coops

Line Comment

192        insert have before left

198        There is not correct; maybe replace by Several

216        were not was

221        reaching not beating

284&289 insert the before k-means

311        remove M. Jeffry

317        Reference error reported

329        insert , before respectively

341        sentence “… 2019 only.” Does not make sense

374        that not to

382        in table the large numbers of digits reported are irrelevant, especially for the SD

393        22 kg (SI requires space)

396        Assertive style but it really sounds like very simplistic economics!

436        uncritically numerous (insignificant) digits are reported in this table

440        who not that

472        insert were before forced

523        for not on

528-9    sentence does not make sense to this reader

550        which not that

553        endorsement not endorse

569        diversity not diversify

Author Response

please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Agriculture is largely policy-driven in most countries, so the topic, which aims to rate the effectiveness of government policy aimed at increasing the number and share of cooperatives in milk production in Kazakhstan, is very actual  and fits the goals of the journal.

 It can be agreed that the success of a policy action much depends on the opinion and reactions of stakeholders.  The starting point is that the costs of encouraging the creation of cooperatives should be recouped from the extra income generated by consumers' willingness to pay extra for a safer supply of milk and milk products.  The consumers WTP determined by several factors, knowing them key to success.

The idea and methodology can be good, but in a cost benefit analysis much more factors should be taken into consideration.  One example, how the increasing competitiveness on international market can generate revenue for government which also can cover the cost of this government intervention.  The environmental effects also can be taken into consideration.  These should be mentioned at least as the limitation of this research.

Readers and the respondent need to know what cooperatives they want to create and how. How are these cooperatives different from those operating in the Soviet system. So the government program needs to be explained in more detail. Not just in terms of content, but when it was introduced and what the results are so far.

We should know is there any other supply chain pathway to reach dairy companies, to increase of efficiency  and find common interest. The results also depend on  the  farmers  willingness to join the cooperatives and households motivation of participate in this  governmental program.

Despite these shortcomings mentioned here, the chosen methodology serves the purpose well. I would like to point out the use of the Reasonable Action Approach (RAA) to assess the level of influence on psychological factors, which is particularly important for the acceptability or rejection of economic policy interventions in a region with a similar past as Kazakhstan.  The conceptual framework of research useful and can be used in other researches on area in question as well.

The questioner and statistical analyses well described.  The discussion mainly the policy implication not always on the line of results, these are wider.   I miss the international comparison,  some fresh literature  can be used examining  how, and what kind of cooperatives can help the competitiveness of agriculture and what is the success or failure of policies  supporting creation of them.  Mentioning the examples from  other countries of ex-Soviet regions  and giving examples from other developing countries and from some developed countries in which the cooperatives mainly marketing cooperatives have long history,  would  increase the added value of this paper as well.  In my mind is that this short comparison can increase the interest of readers, and would be useful for policy makers in Kazashtan as well. 

Some other suggestions:

Generally it is  a very interesting paper, with high potential. There are places for improvement,  The reference list suggested to be extended, The limitation of research should be highlighted.

On page 7 the scale should be explained in the text.

Table 3. Kazakhstan population (2019) versus the sample.

In this Table  the data of % column needs to be corrected, the data are not 0, 53, 0.47, but 53, 47.   The title and data in the last column of the table should also be corrected as before.

According to the following statement

„Kazakh citizens seem less likely to support government policy under the current circumstances. Results show that an average WTP  in the pandemic period was lower compared with the pre-pandemic period” . That is not clear it is valid for supporting for creation of cooperatives in dairy sector or that is a general statement.

The authors use mainly local currency, it would be nice the give the data in US dollar as well,  as that is shown in case of export and import. 

Generally it is  a very interesting paper, with high potential.  However there are places for improvement.   The reference list suggested to be extended. The limitation of research should also be more highlighted.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank for taking my suggestions into consideration. 

I suggest the paper to be published in present form and wish success in the future as well.