Decentralisation and Resilience: A Multidimensional Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper approaches a very interesting and intensively debated topic. However, after reading the abstract, one might presume that data are quite old (the crisis from 2008), which is not necessarily the case since authors are covering a larger period of time. It should be also more emphasized in the abstract the added value (and eventually lessons learned) brought by this research in light of present times. One sentence about multidimensional wellbeing should be also added. Otherwise, the abstract is clear and covers all aspects needed.

I suggest to add the keywords Crisis and Europe, eventually multidimensional resilience instead multidimensionality.

It would be interesting to offer own explanations and reasons from the literature for the following statements: “Moreover, quite interestingly, the economic, fiscal, and financial crisis has somewhat tended to lessen the decentralisation trend registered in the recent decades (Sharpe, 1979; 1993; Bobbio, 2002; OECD, 2019) in favour of a "recentralisation" by the central government, therefore, reversing the process of decentralization (Bolgherini, 2014).” For more objectivity of the scientific approach, it is recommended to expose also more extensively the arguments of economists/ researchers which are pro centralization.

Line 91 related to SDGs is not clear. Authors mean probably the extent to which SDGs are achieved, as later on explained, sustainable development indicators.

Authors need to review the text, there are some small mistake (e.g. Lines 187-190), my contribution instead of our (line 342) etc. Table 8 is not entirely visible.

The paper connects the well-being with the spending in different sectors on regional level. However, the abstract refers to fiscal decentralization which might go beyond the decentralization spending. This aspect should be clarified.

A very interesting paper, well written, providing coherent and logical arguments/ structure. In my personal opinion (if shared also by authors), authors should not only outline the narrow sighted nature of GDP as a measurement of wellbeing, but also its dangerous nature (related to GDP growth) in conjunction with SDGs and sustainable development in general.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting paper about the relationship between decentralisation and resilience, based on analysis of data from 22 European countries from 2004-2017. I think the underlying work is valuable. However, the presentation of the paper has a number of problems, and I think the authors should be asked to address a number of issues prior to publication being considered:

 

·         The Abstract could be strengthened by more strongly emphasising (a) the paper’s focus on decentralisation, and (b) the implications for scholarship (rather than for policy).

·          The Introduction section needs to better explain the relationship between (i) the focus on decentralisation and (ii) the focus on multidimensional analysis of resilience. Each issue is well explained but the connection between the two issues is not emphasised. The reader could be forgiven for thinking that the paper has two quite separate points of focus, which is not the case. I think that the issue is that if we want to understand the implications of decentralisation for resilience then we need a multidimensional analysis of resilience.

·         The section on Resilience needs to more explicitly explain (albeit briefly in each case) why the approaches covered are limited compared to the one that is eventually chosen for the paper.

·         Section 3 needs to be split into several sections. It seems to cover issues of Literature Review (on decentralisation), Methodology and Results, and these need to be separated. Additionally, the Results part would benefit from having sub-headings like data sources, analysis, etc.

·         Some of the content on methodology, and *especially* that on page 7, would benefit from more explanation of “why” the approach is being taken, rather than just what you did. Why have you selected those countries to analyse? Why have you selected those sources of data? Why have you selected specific additional variables to include in the analysis? It will be to your advantage if you explicitly link this to your arguments in the previous sections.

·         We seem to need a Discussion section, between the Results and the Concluding Remarks, which sets out how the Results you have produced contributes to the literature you reviewed earlier (in section 2). In what ways do your Results say something new that is important in light of the debates going on in that literature?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf