Empirical Analysis of Military Expenditures in NATO Nations
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Reviewer‘s comments and recommendations regarding the paper “Empirical Analysis of Burden Sharing in NATO“:
I read the article with a great interest and would like to say that the authors deal with an important topic these days, the work is structured, consistent, the methodology is clear. I have some comments and recommendations, which, I hope, will help to improve the work by providing more detailed results of the research conducted:
- In the section “Introduction”, I suggest clearly define the problem you are addressing in your research.
- As the study deals not only with the analysis of the relationship between military spending and average military burden of NATO member states (percentage of GDP), but also with the examination of the relationship between military expenditure and socio-economic indicators (GDP, population, government expenditure excluding military, trade balance), in section “Literature overview” it would be useful to quote the results of contemporary research (2010-2021) on the relationship between military expenditure and GDP, military expenditure and population, military expenditure and other government expenditure, military expenditure and trade balance. What are relationships between military and socio-economic indicators in short-run and long-run?
- The authors should clearly state the research hypotheses or research questions in the methodological section.
- I recommend renaming the section "Results" to "Results and discussion", where the authors would not only present the results of their research, but also compare them with the insights of recent investigations, discuss similarities and differences, and identify possible reasons for variation of the results. Moreover, when presenting the results, please emphasize the relationship between military expenditure and socio-economic performance in NATO and compare findings with previous studies.
- In section “Conclusions” please also shortly highlight the results obtained in NATO countries in the context of military spending - socio-economic performance. Moreover, I recommend acknowledging the limitations of research, the directions of the results implementation as well as scientific and practical value of the investigation.
- I also recommend supplementing the Abstract with some insights related to the analysis of the relationship between military spending and socio-economic indicators, as the authors mention in the Abstract that the ARDL model used allows this to be done.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
I am resubmitting the research paper entitled „Empirical Analysis of Military Expenditures in NATO Nations" (title has been rewritten) for publication in Economies.
The paper has been rewritten according to reviewer´s recommendations:
- title has been rewritten according to reviewer´s recommendations
- abstract has been revised according to reviewer´s recommendations
- the part Literature overview has been extended – authors have added additional paper focused on determinants of military expenditures
- tables 2, 3 and figure 1 have been revised according to reviewer´s recommendations
- section Result has been renamed and revised
- section Conclusions have been revised according to reviewer´s recommendations.
Thank you again for very careful review of our paper, and for the comments. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions.
Reviewer 2 Report
Consider, what is the main benefit of the manuscript: Is it to use ARDL model in an inovative way, or to model and assess military expenditures? If the second possibility is true, rewrite title and abstract with emphasize on military expenditures. Clearly stated main aim of the manuscript should be stated (maybe at the end of Introduction).
Figure 1 - instead of composed bar plot, three time series curves provide better visual information.
Table 2, 3 - emphasise in title, that table consists individual models for each country.
Consider to explain results from tables 2 and 3 of 2-3 very different countries in deep before general descriptions of results. It can help reader to fully understand the resulting numbers and its interpretation and implications of significance.
Discussion is missing, but topis is really specific, maybe it is not possible to discuss results with another papers.
Conclusions seems more like Summary. I suggest to formulate conclusions only, and follow by recommendations or forecasts or somewhat important.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
I am resubmitting the research paper entitled „Empirical Analysis of Military Expenditures in NATO Nations" (title has been rewritten) for publication in Economies.
The paper has been rewritten according to reviewer´s recommendations:
- title has been rewritten according to reviewer´s recommendations
- abstract has been revised according to reviewer´s recommendations
- the part Literature overview has been extended – authors have added additional paper focused on determinants of military expenditures
- tables 2, 3 and figure 1 have been revised according to reviewer´s recommendations
- section Result has been renamed and revised
- section Conclusions have been revised according to reviewer´s recommendations.
Thank you again for very careful review of our paper, and for the comments. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions.
