How Efficient Is the Cohesion Policy in Supporting Small and Mid-Sized Enterprises in the Transition to a Low-Carbon Economy?
, Clara Viseu 1,4, António Trigo 1,5, Maria Gouveia 1,2,3 and Ana Amaro 2,6
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is well structured, with the results elaborated and their interpretation presented in a proper way. Policy implications are very clear.
Minor suggestions are as follows:
line 116 ... in the European Union (EU)
Line 160-162 (2020). ... Regional Studies, 54(1), 60-71.
line 174 from 2015 to date. (present?).
on page
3.1. The SBN model
model is given by Tone (2001):
line 220 Kersan-Škabić
line 235 "." instead of ":"
Author Response
Reviewer 1:
The paper is well structured, with the results elaborated and their interpretation presented in a proper way. Policy implications are very clear.
R: We would like to thank the reviewer for his/her positive comments.
Minor suggestions are as follows:
line 116 ... in the European Union (EU)
Line 160-162 (2020). ... Regional Studies, 54(1), 60-71.
line 174 from 2015 to date. (present?).
on page
3.1. The SBN model
model is given by Tone (2001):
line 220 Kersan-Škabić
line 235 "." instead of ":"
R: Thank you very much for your corrections. We have incorporated them in the text. We would like to mention that the corrections regarding Section 3.1. were no longer required because this particular Section was changed according to other reviewer’s suggestions.
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper aims to evaluate the efficiency of the implementation of structural funds in from distinct EU beneficiary countries and regions. The authors have done an exhaustive statisticval analysis and provide valuable data to better understand how the union has been implementing, or failed to implement, the transition to a low carbon economy.
The paper is very technical and, especialy in the introduction and the conclusions the authors need to provide a simpler elaboration of their research questions and conclusions.
Also the paper is not formated according to the journals template, please revise this!
Author Response
Reviewer 2
This paper aims to evaluate the efficiency of the implementation of structural funds in from distinct EU beneficiary countries and regions. The authors have done an exhaustive statisticval analysis and provide valuable data to better understand how the union has been implementing, or failed to implement, the transition to a low carbon economy.
R: We would like to thank the reviewer for his/her overall positive comments.
The paper is very technical and, especialy in the introduction and the conclusions the authors need to provide a simpler elaboration of their research questions and conclusions.
R: Thank you very much for your observation. In this regard we have changed the Introduction in order to further clarify some technical issues and introduced our research questions to further clarify our aims and we have replied to them in the conclusions.
Also the paper is not formated according to the journals template, please revise this!
R: Thank you very much for suggestion. We have formatted the paper accordingly.
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is very interesting and necessary on the efficiency of cohesion policy to support the EU's transition to a low-carbon economy. I find the manuscript is well written in appropriate academic writing style. Below are some specific comments the authors should address:
1. The input and output variables are an important procedure in DEA application. Please analyse the input and output variables more thoroughly, without basing everything on expert opinions. If ones can not properly, scientifically assume/define the inputs and outputs of the DEA model, the efficiency results are not convinced.
2. Why this specific mathematical apparatus was selected? Why is it better than other approaches (e.g., econometric models)? Without these justifications, this paper is just a mathematical approach to evaluate the implementation of the funds devoted to fostering a low-carbon economy in SMEs, without any added value. Methodology section is lengthy and needs to be shortened, especially section 3.1. The methods are existing methods. The methodological contribution is limited.
3. In the Conclusions section, the authors should directly offer answers to each of their research hypotheses. The implications especially emerging from the study should be presented in detail.
Author Response
Reviewer 3
The paper is very interesting and necessary on the efficiency of cohesion policy to support the EU's transition to a low-carbon economy. I find the manuscript is well written in appropriate academic writing style.
R: We would like to thank the reviewer for his/her overall positive comments.
Below are some specific comments the authors should address:
- The input and output variables are an important procedure in DEA application. Please analyse the input and output variables more thoroughly, without basing everything on expert opinions. If ones can not properly, scientifically assume/define the inputs and outputs of the DEA model, the efficiency results are not convinced.
R: Thank you very much for your observation. In this regard we have further described the reasons behind the choice of the input and output factors used.
- Why this specific mathematical apparatus was selected? Why is it better than other approaches (e.g., econometric models)? Without these justifications, this paper is just a mathematical approach to evaluate the implementation of the funds devoted to fostering a low-carbon economy in SMEs, without any added value.
R: Thank you very much for your observation. In this regard we have added the following information in the Introduction:
“Although the publications available for evaluating structural funds are prolific (see Section 2) in number, there are still gaps in the literature, particularly when the evaluations take place during the planning periods. When performing this sort of assessment by applying the DEA method, fine-grain information can be obtained by allowing Management Authorities (MA) to identify the benchmarks of inefficient Operational Programmes (OPs) and providing information on the best practices that these OPs should undertake to become efficient. In this way, and differently from other methodologies and approaches that are specially used in ex-post and ex-ante policy evaluations (e.g., microeconomic studies, which use control groups, case study evaluation, and macroeconomic and econometric impact evaluations), DEA allows monitoring the efficiency of OPs' implementation (by considering the performance framework indicators reported by MS) during the programming period underway, allowing for the adoption of the required corrective actions to achieve efficiency. Furthermore, DEA may provide actual support in the design of future cohesion policy instruments since it enables understanding the key achievements and shortcomings of the preceding implementation programming cycles, also offering information on how to overcome the identified shortcomings. Finally, by coupling DEA with cluster analysis MA can also exploit the differences between the performances of distinct regions’ categories.”
Methodology section is lengthy and needs to be shortened, especially section 3.1. The methods are existing methods. The methodological contribution is limited.
R: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have shortened this section accordingly.
- In the Conclusions section, the authors should directly offer answers to each of their research hypotheses. The implications especially emerging from the study should be presented in detail.
R: Thank you very much for your observation. In this regard we have introduced our research questions in the Introduction to further clarify our aims and we have replied to them in the conclusions.
