An Intergenerational Issue: The Equity Issues Due to Public–Private Partnerships; The Critical Aspect of the Social Discount Rate Choice for Future Generations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Line 75-87, authors should make clear the objectives of the paper.
2. There is no method framework to solve the intergenerational issue in PPP projects via SDR.
3. In this paper, the authors indicated the parameters of SDR, ethical theories, and the social welfare function. How did it support addressing the intergenerational issue?
4. The authors should consider the way of abbreviations for consistency in the article.
5. The authors should not cite in the conclusion section.
6. The paper is organized complicated which leads to be difficult for the reader.

Author Response

Reply to Comments and Suggestions for Authors by Reviewer #1

First, thanks a lot for your positive words, and the time spent in reading us, commenting and suggesting improvements. We have taken all your comments into account. Several overlap those of the other Reviewer ! The paper has been also carefully checked to remove typos and misprints.

We submit two versions to the Editor : R1a contains the changes with highlighted text: green for added text, red (and double crossed out words) for removed text, in the final version R1b.

In the following, we provide a comment to each of yours in the order you have chosen. For not excessively increasing the length of the present reply, we do not copy the whole text changes, but only refer to the subsections or sections where the main changes occur. We hope that this is sufficient. We hope that all modifications are mentioned. Yet, please forget us for not pointing to minute details where changes occur, like typos and misprints.

Our comments or replies are in italics below.

 

1. Line 75-87, authors should make clear the objectives of the paper.

Reply: We are grateful to the Reviewer for this constructive comment which allows us to enrich the description of our aims and findings. Since we have different perspectives, within our aims, i.e., a problem that PPPs raise for further generation due to the SDR choice, our text should be allowing a reader to understand the complexity of the paper structure. We also hope that the editor allows us for such an unusual length of the abstract. We hope that the Introduction section is even more explicit in the revised version. Thanks for the recommendation.

2. There is no method framework to solve the intergenerational issue in PPP projects via SDR.

Reply: We appreciate the Reviewer comment. We would be extremely pleased to read opposite points of view to ours, if they are well substantiated. Our’’optimistic’’ hypothesis is that one could expect that a few, if possible many, policymakers become aware that the well being of future generations is constrained by the present policies. We admit here, in this reply, as well as in the submitted and original version that our view might be wishful thinking. We wish that through our reflexion on PPPs, due to the different outlined perspectives and arguments, strictly within our aims, that policymakers and academics are understanding that one should search for various means for further generation well beings. We agree that the SDR choice has some limitation limit. We hope to have made the case more balanced through more ‘’ We have added sorts of arguments throughout the revised version, adding several   sentences and paragraphs to mitigate our claims.

3. In this paper, the authors indicated the parameters of SDR, ethical theories, and the social welfare function. How did it support addressing the intergenerational issue?

Reply: Thanks for the question. We are sorry not to have apparently well argued the point in the submitted version. It seems that this is our basic research question 2. In this revised version, the SWF role is discussed with more explanation based on Figure 1. Notice that the new section 5.5 is likely answering your criticism. We add several paragraphs also indicating how the choice of SDR can practically impact financial values amounts in the future. This points to the crucial aspect of SDR for future generations.

4. The authors should consider the way of abbreviations for consistency in the article.

Reply: We thank the Reviewer for her/his suggestion. We provide a small Table with acronyms between the Abstract and main text. We indicate where the notion is first mentioned in the text. Notice that this is not necessarily when the precise definition occurs, since such definitions need some elaboration, better found where the notion is technically introduced. Thanks for the recommendation.

5. The authors should not cite in the conclusion section.

Reply: We understand your concern. We agree that references in the conclusion should be avoided if possible. However, they are sometimes necessary, in our opinion, if the authors findings are confirming or infirming previous work, and if suggestions for further research can be more firmly argued based on references to other authors. We have removed a few references in order to comply with your comment, but, yet, kept a few.

6. The paper is organized complicated which leads to be difficult for the reader.

Reply: We thank the Reviewer for her/his comment. We also are aware that the paper has a complex structure. This is due to the subject, to our aims, and to the different perspectives or points of view that we consider. We have tried in the revised version to take your remarks into account, outlining a little bit more specifically the aims of each section and subsection. Notice in line with your remark, the very relevant (in our opinion) move of the previous subsection 7.3 into 5.5. Thank you for your concern. We hope that the revised version is becoming more pertinent.

We are grateful to you for raising so many interesting and relevant points, allowing us to improve our communication.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper represents a good contribution to the literature and important results are achieved. The authors investigated the impact of public policy on intergenerational equity issues. More precisely, the research question pertains to the impact of Social Dis-15 count Rate (SDR) choice on intergenerational equity issues caused by Public–Private Partnerships (PPPs) projects. The paper has potential but before being considered for publication, the authors must take into consideration some aspects:

• The abstract can be improved, for example including mor achievements;
• Introduction can also be improved, for example, highlighting the novelty and contributions to the literature;
• All the abbreviations must be presented in the text;
• In the introduction, risk assessment is also a relevant aspect and more literature could be added on this regard (Marques and Berg, 2011);
• The literature review can be improved;
• Highlight the main characteristics and limitations of the methodological approach;
• All sources of information must be included;
• Regarding table 1, explain better the significance of Discount Rate and the implications;
• All formulas and equations must be numbered, for example the ones included in chapter 5.1;
• Explain better the Figure 1 and include some information about the axes in the figure;
• It would be important if authors could highlight main aspects to be taken into account in the analysis in other countries?
• The authors could also develop better about the effect of these approaches on competition and private behaviour.
• How do you see the role of regulation to improve the project selection or execution?
• Authors can also highlight main aspects that can be taken into account in future research on this topic.
• I would expect more recommendations for decision makers in the conclusions;
• The references must be in line with the author guidelines, for example some issues are missing.

References:

MARQUES, R.; BERG, S. (2011). Risks, contracts and private sector participation in infrastructure. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. ASCE. ISSN: 0733-9364. Vol. 137, no. 11, pp. 925-933.

Author Response

Reply to « Comments and Suggestions for Authors » by Reviewer #2

 

 

 

First, thanks a lot for your positive words, and the time spent in reading us, commenting and suggesting improvements. We have taken all your comments into account. Several overlap those of the other Reviewer ! The paper has been also carefully checked to remove typos and misprints.

We submit two versions to the Editor : R1a contains the changes with highlighted text: green for added text, red (and double crossed out words) for removed text, in the final version R1b.

In the following, we provide a comment to each of yours in the order you have chosen. For not excessively increasing the length of the present reply, we do not copy the whole text changes, but only refer to the subsections or sections where the main changes occur. We hope that this is sufficient. We hope that all modifications are mentioned. Yet, please forget us for not pointing to minute details where changes occur, like typos and misprints.

Our comments or replies are in italics below.

 

The paper represents a good contribution to the literature and important results are achieved. The authors investigated the impact of public policy on intergenerational equity issues. More precisely, the research question pertains to the impact of Social Dis-15 count Rate (SDR) choice on intergenerational equity issues caused by Public–Private Partnerships (PPPs) projects. The paper has potential but before being considered for publication, the authors must take into consideration some aspects:

• The abstract can be improved, for example including mor achievements;

We are grateful to the Reviewer for this pertinent comment which allows us to enrich the description of our aims and findings. Since we have different perspectives, within our aim, a problem that PPPs raise for further generation due to the SDR choice, the abstract can serve better now in allowing a reader to understand the complexity of the paper structure. We hope that the editor allows us for such an unusual length of the abstract. Thanks for the recommendation.

• Introduction can also be improved, for example, highlighting the novelty and contributions to the literature;

We thank the Reviewer for her/his suggestion. We suggest to look at the version R1a where the green text demonstrates that we took this quite constructive comment very much into account ; see new paragraphs §1, §2, §5, §6, §7, §8.

• All the abbreviations must be presented in the text;

We thank the Reviewer for her/his suggestion. We also provide a small Table with acronyms between the Abstract and main text. We indicate where the notion is first mentioned in the text. Notice that this is not necessarily when the precise definition occurs, since such definitions need some elaboration, better found where the notion is technically introduced. Thanks for the recommendation.

• In the introduction, risk assessment is also a relevant aspect and more literature could be added on this regard (Marques and Berg, 2011);

This is a very relevant point that was quite hidden in the previous version of the paper. We are grateful to the Reviewer for having raised this criticism. In the revision, see §7, we point that one should consider such a constraint. The risk assessment is somewhat mention in other various paragraphs. We mention several pertinent references, in particular, we added the work by Marques and Berg. Thanks for the recommendation.

• The literature review can be improved;

This is a classical criticism, indeed ; we admit that the literature is enormous on specific points, and could be differently discussed. Since, we frame our study with certain aspects, we tried not to overload the reader with « too much » literature review outside our main aims. However, we take into account your remark, considering your emphasis on completeness rather than on copying abstracts ; we have added (about 14) such references for a more complete literature grasp by the reader. We want to emphasise where the literature review takes place. We consider that a huge section on literature would frighten the reader, thus we have preferred to mention the relevant literature with the subsequent comments in the section of subsection where the notion and previous findings are found to be of interest. We would like that our choice be found acceptable. Thank you for caring.

• Highlight the main characteristics and limitations of the methodological approach;

This is a very relevant point that was quite hidden in the previous version of the

paper. We are grateful to the Reviewer for having raised this criticism. We have added a paragraph, the last one of the text, pointing to what we consider the main 3 limitations of the study, - in some sense suggesting further research. Thank you for the suggestion.

• All sources of information must be included;

This is a very pertinent comment. We hope that we have mentioned all sources of numerical and political information in the present revision.

• Regarding table 1, explain better the significance of Discount Rate and the implications;

Thank you for this very pertinent comment We have added two paragraphs after the Table 1 is presented and also introduce the ‘’problem’’ at the beginning of SubSection 3.2. Thank you for suggesting such a clarification.

• All formulas and equations must be numbered, for example the ones included in chapter 5.1;

OK, done ; thank you.

• Explain better the Figure 1 and include some information about the axes in the figure;

Thanks a lot. Re-reading the submitted version, and following your remark, we completely agree with your suggestion. We are sorry for not having thought enough about describing the figure, its content and implications. The matter is very relevant since the comparison of ethical theories is a key point for us when discussing past and future PPPS, - and in particular the illustrative UK case. We hopefully much improve the information contained in Fig.1 , now ; we have added a couple of paragraphs in subsection 7.1. Thank you again for suggesting such a clarification.

• It would be important if authors could highlight main aspects to be taken into account in the analysis in other countries?

OK, very good and interesting point. We have focussed too much on UK, because it’s the leading country in PPPs whence in data availability. For enlarging the scope of the study, therefore we have added a couple of paragraphs and mention of SDR cases in a few other countries in the revised version ; see in particular subsection 4.3.

• The authors could also develop better about the effect of these approaches on competition and private behaviour.

Good point, however, this is demanding a quite different scope and study. Even though we appreciate the suggestion, we expect that as a second thought, you will accept that we do not enter too much into such considerations now. This remark is taken into account through 2 new paragraphs in subsection 4.3, and one in subsection 3.2, beside previous comments in Subsection 4.2. Of course, we point out that the social opportunity cost is concerned with distributing resources between the private sector and the government sector in an efficient way. But we admit not to deal with competition in private sectors based on SOC is a specific subject not treated so far in our study.

• How do you see the role of regulation to improve the project selection or execution?

This is a very pertinent question, whence demanding more than an interesting comment or reply. The laws (or means) of regulation in project selection are highly political matters more than economical or financial ones. Any selection can manifest itself as a negative realisation of a submission, weakening the interconnections among the governments and private sectors in the socio-economic society network. In turn, such an action of selection makes the network itself less cohesive. Therefore, the adopted perspective does not foresee a ‘’positive evolution’’ of the network – which would imply the presence of amplified effects of the selection processes on all the network. We have introduced such a comment in §2 and §3 of subsection 3.2. Thanks for this very pertinent point (bis).

• Authors can also highlight main aspects that can be taken into account in future research on this topic.

Good point, of course. However, in some sense this is outlined throughout the Section 8 on’’Conclusions’’. Following your suggestion on the limitations of the study and its conclusion somewhat covers your remark in the now last paragraph of the revised version.

• I would expect more recommendations for decision makers in the conclusions;

OK, we don’t mind, even though one realises that this is somewhat more political than philosophical. We stress throughout the text in new paragraphs that policymakers must consider ethical theories. This is further emphasised in the next to last paragraph of the Conclusions section. We seem to indicate to the reader that we consider that policymakers could do better in order to reach a more equilaterian society, yet keeping workers motivation in mind, but (one of our main points) consider the future generations well being. We stress in §2 and in §4 of the conclusion section that the policymakers can do something spontaneously, or if they fear a lack of moral concern, they can imagine new regulations. Notice that this might be better realized through measures at upper level than on country government levels, as now mentioned in §5 of the Conclusions section.

• The references must be in line with the author guidelines, for example some issues are missing.

OK,we agree ; we seem to have further examined the literature and bibliography and hope to have complied with this remark in the revised version. We sincerely apologise if we have missed some reference which you might have considered more relevant. We assure you that we are not biased. On the contrary.

N.B. Notice in line with your suggestion of introducing new comments, explanations, and in some sense highlighting our considerations, the very relevant move of the previous subsection 7.3 into 5.5. In so doing the UK case seems to fall better as an illustration than as the main point of the paper. Thank you for your concern.

We are grateful for raising so many interesting and relevant points. We aim to continue our studies on Complexity, Uncertainty and Incompleteness of PPPs by conceptualising resilience measures that can appreciate geopolitical changes over the long term.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf