Promotion of European Wines in Third Countries within the Common Market Organisation Framework: The Case of France
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper researches which factors have an influence on the correct implementation of CMO measure of promotion in the principal wine exporter country: France. Paper is well structured, it has a theoretical background, methodology and presentation of results, which are discussed, and in the end of the paper limitations of the research are stated. For future research it would be useful to use larger sample and time span and perhaps compare more countries.
Author Response
REF: 1525208
Article: “Promotion of European Wines in Third Countries within the Common Market Organization Framework: The Case of France”
First of all, we would like to express our most sincere gratitude for the comments made.
In the new version, which has been re-uploaded, we have made changes according to your comments and those of the other reviewers (in the manuscript the changes are written in red). With the proposed changes, the quality of the article is now improved, as a result of the relevance and the thoroughness of the comments.
Below, we include the response to your questions:
We have added your suggestions in the results and conclusions section where we clarify the possibilities of including more years in the sample, considering increasing the number of intervals in some of the variables, such as, for example, registering exports per trimester and not annually. Notwithstanding, by publishing the execution data of the measure of promotion every 12 months, we have not been able to implement it. We also value and suggest future lines of reaseach such as the expansion of the number of countries with similar characteristics.
We are avaiblable for any further clarification you may require.
Yours faithfully,
The authors
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors of the paper "Promotion of European wines in third countries within the CMO framework: the case of France", present a well designed paper with relevant topic. Also, the objectives of the paper are well defined and supported by well proposed methodology. There are only few minor problems reducing quality of the paper.
- Table 1. should include latest CAP reform main characteristics since new reform is adopted, just its implementation in member states is going to take place in 2023.
- The conclusions section - Authors mention very little about the limitations of the study and future research, this should be expanded and better elaborated.
Author Response
REF: 1525208
Article: “Promotion of European Wines in Third Countries within the Common Market Organization Framework: The Case of France”
First of all, we would like to express our most sincere gratitude for the comments made.
In the new version, which has been re-uploaded, we have made changes according to your comments and those of the other reviewers (in the manuscript the changes are written in red). With the proposed changes, the quality of the article is now improved, as a result of the relevance and the thoroughness of the comments.
Below, we include the response to your questions:
We have made the changes in Table 1, as you mentioned, and we have added the limitations and future lines of research in the results and conclusions section. Specifically, within the limitations, we have considered increasing the number of intervals in some of the variables, such as, for example, registering the exports per trimester and not annually. Notwithstanding the execution data for the measure of promotion is published every 12 months, which limits the sample size for consideration by years and, as previously indicated, the number of conditions to study; additionally, the studies published by the DG AGRI do not detail the market goals chosen by the group of French beneficiaries. Lastly, regarding the final limitation, the relationship between the measure of promotion and the commercial aspect (exports) is incomplete.
For futures lines of research, we would first try to explore additional, different scientific models to fs/QCA with a greater number of cases and, secondly, the detailed analysis of the public administration and its specific impact on the execution ratio at business level.
We are available for any further clarification you may require.
Yours faithfully,
The authors
Reviewer 3 Report
Promotion of European Wines in Third Countries within the CMO Framework: The Case of France
According to authors this paper aims to understand which factors have an influence on the correct implementation of CMO measure of promotion in the principal wine exporter country: France. I think this could be a very promising work subject to the comments below:
You need to identify literature gaps in your research field and highlight your unique (and Important) contribution to our understanding of the area. What is your most important finding from your study and shed insight on our understanding of the field? You may even positioning your most interesting findings in your title to highlight your contribution.
Your theoretical background and literature review need to be significantly enhanced in order to develop meaningful hypotheses based on convincing logic and theoretical reasoning. I am not convinced about the variables that you use and the way you interpret their efficiency (for example, V1, V2 etc,). You should refer to similar works that used these variables and more information is needed about the gap covered in this study in relation to previous literature and the relevance of the gap.
Another important issue is: Who and how can benefit from such a research approach? This is ignored. The study's purpose should be defined in detail, and more discussion about the importance of the research and its implications should be provided.
In brief, the author(s) should clarify their work's novel contribution by comparing their findings with previous research.
Author Response
REF: 1525208
Article: “Promotion of European Wines in Third Countries within the Common Market Organization Framework: The Case of France”
First of all, we would like to express our most sincere gratitude for the comments made.
In the new version, which has been re-uploaded, we have made changes according to your comments and those of the other reviewers (in the manuscript the changes are written in red). With the proposed changes, the quality of the article is now improved, as a result of the relevance and the thoroughness of the comments.
Below, we include the response to your questions:
Regarding the lack of literature in various sections of our research, it is stressed that this limitation may be considered an advantage with regards to the originality of the study.
Concerning the number of variables, in order to have statistical results with high reliability and due to the limited number of years, the number of variables is adjusted to these conditions and we add this explanation to the end of section 3.5. We consider the V1 and V2 variables to be essential (as we can only include 4 variables) for the study of influential factors in a public spending policy. The V3 variable is a variable introduced by the authors which studies the ex_ante and ex_post differential of the measure of promotion quota. Finally, although it has its limits, the commercial sales in the year n-1 should be the other variable to consider in order to give an empirical connotation to the study and to serve as a reference for the production fabric.
Regarding the beneficiaries of this research, we have included your suggestion and we refer to them throughout the article, mainly in the abstract and in the results and conclusions section.
We are available for any further clarification you may require.
Yours faithfully,
The authors
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper presents interesting and relevant study. However, it needs some improvements that are indicated below.
- Regarding methodology: did you consider to employ time-series QCA (which is designed to examine temporal change). Please, argue, why have you chosen fsQCA (and not tsQCA).
- Please, argue the relation of conditions and cases (4 conditions in 9 cases).
- The papers lacks discussion section and recommendations for future studies as well as recommendations for policy and management – these need to be included in the paper. The discussion should refer to previous studies and highlight the contribution of this study.
Due to the above three points, I suggest major revision.
Other suggestions:
- Try to avoid abbreviations in the title (in this case: CMO), as well as in the key words (abbreviation can be added to full name)
- Please, verify is it the same as in the Figure : “Figure 1 shows how in the face of a constant increase of the exports in the value of 152 bottled French wine to third countries (blue line), the budget (grey line) and the implementation of a measure (orange line) does not show the same trends”
- To increase the readability, please, explain “Var. 08/19” in Table 4.
- Lines 326-327: “The value 1 in each configuration indicates a score of the calibrated variable greater or 326 lesser than 0.5 (that is to say, closer to the category of complete member)”: is the “lesser” appropriate word here?
- In line 347 use quotation marks to increase readability (”logic or” and “logic and”)
- Are Author(s) aware of the possible impact of other factors (including temporary conditions in global markets/economy or the supply changes associated with harvest). This should be discussed along with other limitations of the study.
- Do Author(s) consider the potential time lag between implementations of some promotion means and increase of sale (which can be partly a result of previous year promotion).
- At the end of line 400 is unacceptable editorial error: (-
- In titles of Tables A1 and A2 (Appendixes) , please specify the scope (the EU?) and the measure in column “Budgeted” (Euros?)
Author Response
REF: 1525208
Article: “Promotion of European Wines in Third Countries within the Common Market Organization Framework: The Case of France”
First of all, we would like to express our most sincere gratitude for the comments made.
In the new version, which has been re-uploaded, we have made changes according to your comments and those of the other reviewers (in the manuscript the changes are written in red). With the proposed changes, the quality of the article and the English style and language is now improved, as a result of the relevance and the thoroughness of the comments.
Below, we include the response to your questions:
C1 - Regarding methodology: did you consider to employ time-series QCA (which is designed to examine temporal change). Please, argue, why have you chosen fsQCA (and not tsQCA).
In fact, as a result of being a pioneering study, we considered the application of diverse methodologies first. Notwithstanding, we reached the conclusion that tsQCA was useful for analysing evolution in the time of a parameter, when our target was to find relationships among diverse paramters. As such, in order to reach our goal, the most appropriate methodology is fsQCA.
C2 - Please, argue the relation of conditions and cases (4 conditions in 9 cases).
A detailed explanation has been added in section 3.5 that is identified as “Change 8”.
“In the true table, there are 2K settings or ranks, where “k” is the number of conditions or variables. There is an empirical rule which states that 2K < number of cases, as such, by having 10 cases (years) it was not possible to introduce a greater number of conditions. This empirical rule is a recommendation and is non-binding. By being a pioneering study with this model for the measure of promotion, only 4 conditions are selected, which is still an acceptable limit to ensure that the results obtained are reliable and robust.”
C3 - The papers lacks discussion section and recommendations for future studies as well as recommendations for policy and management – these need to be included in the paper. The discussion should refer to previous studies and highlight the contribution of this study.
Regarding this suggestion, sub-section 5 regarding the Discussion and Conclusions has been re/structured, modified and expanded.
C4 - Try to avoid abbreviations in the title (in this case: CMO), as well as in the key words (abbreviation can be added to full name)
The abbreviations have been elimiated and replaced with the full name both in the title as well as in the key words, as can be verified in the modifications identified as “Change 1” and “Change 2”.
C5 - Please, verify is it the same as in the Figure : “Figure 1 shows how in the face of a constant increase of the exports in the value of 152 bottled French wine to third countries (blue line), the budget (grey line) and the implementation of a measure (orange line) does not show the same trends”
The text regarding the comment corresponding to Figure 1 has been modified (you may verify how in “Change 5”).
C6 - To increase the readability, please, explain “Var. 08/19” in Table 4.
It has been explained both in Table 4 as well as in the text that it refers to.
C7 - Lines 326-327: “The value 1 in each configuration indicates a score of the calibrated variable greater or 326 lesser than 0.5 (that is to say, closer to the category of complete member)”: is the “lesser” appropriate word here?
An error has been detected in the translation of the document. The word “lesser” has been replaced with “equal” which may be verified in “Change 7”.
C8 - In line 347 use quotation marks to increase readability (”logic or” and “logic and”)
In order to improve the readability, quotation marks have been added to “logic or” and “logic and”.
C9 - Are Author(s) aware of the possible impact of other factors (including temporary conditions in global markets/economy or the supply changes associated with harvest). This should be discussed along with other limitations of the study.
A more detailed and structured analysis regarding the limitations of this study has been included. It may easily be found in the paragraph identified as “Change 9”.
C10 - Do Author(s) consider the potential time lag between implementations of some promotion means and increase of sale (which can be partly a result of previous year promotion).
A reflection is included in the limitations sub-section (“Change 9”). In the proposed model, it was only possible to include 4 conditions and, given that it is a pioneering study with this approach, it was decided to begin with the analysis of the short-term impact (following year) considering the commercial results as the cause of the future implementation; we are aware that the approach is incomplete by not considering the repercusion in other coming years or by not considering, on the other hand, the sales of the coming years as a result of the promotion tools.
C11 - At the end of line 400 is unacceptable editorial error: (-
The error has been detected and modified.
C12 - In titles of Tables A1 and A2 (Appendixes) , please specify the scope (the EU?) and the measure in column “Budgeted” (Euros?)
The clarifications have been included for Tables A1 and A2 (Change 11).
We are avaiblable for any further clarification you may require.
Yours faithfully,
The authors
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
In the revised version, the authors highlighted the novelty and contribution of their study. Hypotheses are much more logical now. Looks like the authors did a great job by significantly expanding the implications and importance of their work for research, practice and society
Reviewer 4 Report
You can still improve the discussion section by indicating the similarities and differences between your findings and results of the previous studies.
In overall, the manuscript represents a good quality and I recommend it to publication.
