Authors

Chantel De Vos;  Lawrence Ogechukwu Obokoh;  Babatunde Abimbola Abiola

Publons users who've claimed - I am an author

No Publons users have claimed this paper.

Contributors on Publons
  • 1 editor
Followers on Publons
  • pre-publication peer review (FINAL ROUND)
    Decision Letter
    2020/07/30

    30-Jul-2020


    Dear De Vos, Chantel ; OBOKOH, LAWRENCE ; ABIOLA, BABATUNDE


    It is a pleasure to accept your manuscript IJSE-11-2019-0692.R2, entitled "Determinants of Savings among Non-Ricardian Households in South Africa" in its current form for publication in International Journal of Social Economics. Please note, no further changes can be made to your manuscript.


    Please go to your Author Centre at https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijsec (Manuscripts with Decisions for the submitting author or Manuscripts I have co-authored for all listed co-authors) to complete the Copyright Transfer Agreement form (CTA). We cannot publish your paper without this.


    All authors are requested to complete the form and to input their full contact details. If any of the contact information is incorrect you can update it by clicking on your name at the top right of the screen. Please note that this must be done prior to you submitting your CTA.


    If you have an ORCID please check your account details to ensure that your ORCID is validated.


    By publishing in this journal your work will benefit from Emerald EarlyCite. As soon as your CTA is completed your manuscript will pass to Emerald’s Content Management department and be processed for EarlyCite publication. EarlyCite is the author proofed, typeset version of record, fully citable by DOI. The EarlyCite article sits outside of a journal issue and is paginated in isolation. The EarlyCite article will be collated into a journal issue according to the journals’ publication schedule.


    FOR OPEN ACCESS AUTHORS: Please note if you have indicated that you would like to publish your article as Open Access via Emerald’s Gold Open Access route, you are required to complete a Creative Commons Attribution Licence - CCBY 4.0 (in place of the standard copyright assignment form referenced above). You will receive a follow up email within the next 30 days with a link to the CCBY licence and information regarding payment of the Article Processing Charge. If you have indicated that you might be eligible for a prepaid APC voucher, you will also be informed at this point if a voucher is available to you (for more information on APC vouchers please see http://www.emeraldpublishing.com/oapartnerships


    Thank you for your contribution. On behalf of the Editors of International Journal of Social Economics, we look forward to your continued contributions to the Journal.


    Sincerely,
    Dr. Richard Woodward
    Editor, International Journal of Social Economics
    ac0956@coventry.ac.uk

    Decision letter by
    Cite this decision letter
    Endorsed by
    Ongoing discussion (0 comments - click to toggle)
    Reviewer report
    2020/07/29

    This is a publication of high standard

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Endorsed by
    Ongoing discussion (0 comments - click to toggle)
    Author Response
    2020/07/27

    The corrections to the comments were satisfactorily done. The variable HHHE in equation 1 (page 8) was NOT defined among the explanatory variables defined in the first paragraph of page 9. This is very minor (an omission). In my view the manuscript is of good quality


    The variable was removed since it was not included in the data analysis table. HHHE in the equation means household head education meaning the educational level of the household head which was not a significant variable among low-income households as many of them are uneducated or with a low level of educational attainment. It was excluded in the model.



    Cite this author response
    Endorsed by
    Ongoing discussion (0 comments - click to toggle)
  • pre-publication peer review (ROUND 2)
    Decision Letter
    2020/07/27

    27-Jul-2020


    Dear Dr. ABIOLA:


    Manuscript ID IJSE-11-2019-0692.R1 entitled "Determinants of Savings among Non-Ricardian Households in South Africa" which you submitted to the International Journal of Social Economics, has been reviewed. The comments of the reviewer(s) are included at the bottom of this letter.


    The reviewer(s) have recommended revisions to the submitted manuscript, before it can be considered for publication. Therefore, I invite you to respond to the reviewer(s)' comments and revise your manuscript.


    To revise your manuscript, log into https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijsec and enter your Author Centre, where you will find your manuscript title listed under "Manuscripts with Decisions." Under "Actions," click on "Create a Revision." Your manuscript number has been appended to denote a revision.


    You will be unable to make your revisions on the originally submitted version of the manuscript. Instead, revise your manuscript using a word processing program and save it on your computer. Please also highlight the changes to your manuscript within the document by using the track changes mode in MS Word or by using bold or coloured text.


    Once the revised manuscript is prepared, you can upload it and submit it through your Author Centre. The deadline for uploading a revised manuscript is 27-Aug-2020 from receiving this email. If it is not possible for you to resubmit your revision within this timeframe, we may have to consider your paper as a new submission.


    When submitting your revised manuscript, you will be able to respond to the comments made by the reviewer(s) in the space provided. You can use this space to document any changes you make to the original manuscript. In order to expedite the processing of the revised manuscript, please be as specific as possible in your response to the reviewer(s).


    IMPORTANT: Your original files are available to you when you upload your revised manuscript. Please delete any redundant files before completing the submission.


    Please note that Emerald requires you to clear permission to re-use any material not created by you. If there are permissions outstanding, please send these to Emerald as soon as possible. Emerald is unable to publish your paper with permissions outstanding.


    Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to the International Journal of Social Economics and I look forward to receiving your revision.


    Sincerely,
    Dr. Richard Woodward
    Editor, International Journal of Social Economics
    ac0956@coventry.ac.uk


    Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
    Reviewer: 1


    Recommendation: Accept


    Comments:
    The authors successfully incorporated the comments.


    Additional Questions:
    Originality: Does the paper contain new and significant information adequate to justify publication?: accept


    Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored?: accept


    Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts, or other ideas? Has the research or equivalent intellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate?: accept


    Results: Are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: accept


    Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?: accept


    Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the field and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: accept


    Reproducible Research: If appropriate, is sufficient information, potentially including data and software, provided to reproduce the results and are the corresponding datasets formally cited?: accept


    This journal is participating in Publons Transparent Peer Review. By reviewing for this journal, you agree that your finished report, along with the author’s responses and the Editor’s decision letter, will be linked to from the published article to where they appear on Publons, if the paper is accepted. If you have any concerns about participating in the Transparent Peer Review pilot, please reach out to the journal’s Editorial office. Please indicate below, whether you would like your name to appear with your report on Publons by indicating yes or no. All peer review content displayed here will be covered by a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license.: No, I would not like my name to appear with my report on Publons


    Reviewer: 2


    Recommendation: Minor Revision


    Comments:
    The corrections to the comments were satisfactorily done. The variable HHHE in equation 1 (page 8) was NOT defined among the explanatory variables defined in the first paragraph of page 9. This is very minor (an omission). In my view the manuscript is of good quality.


    Additional Questions:
    Originality: Does the paper contain new and significant information adequate to justify publication?: The study identified and investigated a practical significant problem/gap which was well justified with relevant literature. The findings of the study will also contribute knowledge in this field of study. The results may serve as reliable basis for informed policy decisions regarding household grants to the NRH in South Africa.


    Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored?: Adequate understanding of literature was demonstrated. The literature presented was very relevant to the problem, research question/s, and objectives of the study. The gap was quite well discussed in the literature. The references were mostly current and consistent in style.


    Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts, or other ideas? Has the research or equivalent intellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate?: - The quantitative methods used for the study were appropriate and scientific
    - Used reliable source of data (NIDS data), which was longitudinal panel survey data
    - The expected effects or hypothesis was well stated generally for all the explanatory variables in the model.
    - The model specification was acceptable.
    - The model estimation was acceptable. In all, 5 types of estimation were chosen for the study, which is an indication of rigor.
    - The models specified sufficiently and appropriately address the study objective/s.
    - The variable HHHE in equation 1 (page 8) was NOT defined among the explanatory variables defined in the first paragraph of page 9.


    Results: Are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: The results are presented clearly and analysed appropriately. The discussion was generally quite good, informed by the results of the study and also linked with results/findings of other related studies.
    There is a good flow and consistency between the study objectives/research question, type of data used, source of data, models used for the analysis and the results of the study. Explanation has also been provided for variables which were excluded in the results table.


    Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?: The results of the study clearly shows that the government grants to the NRHs have positive impact on savings among the target households. The study also recommended that savings among the NRHs can be improved if the grant is increased. The findings can be used as basis for informed policy decisions regarding improvement of any of the determinants for the NRHs.


    Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the field and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: Generally the paper is devoid of ambiguities and quite reader friendly.


    Reproducible Research: If appropriate, is sufficient information, potentially including data and software, provided to reproduce the results and are the corresponding datasets formally cited?: The paper has the required qualities for publication in international journal.


    This journal is participating in Publons Transparent Peer Review. By reviewing for this journal, you agree that your finished report, along with the author’s responses and the Editor’s decision letter, will be linked to from the published article to where they appear on Publons, if the paper is accepted. If you have any concerns about participating in the Transparent Peer Review pilot, please reach out to the journal’s Editorial office. Please indicate below, whether you would like your name to appear with your report on Publons by indicating yes or no. All peer review content displayed here will be covered by a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license.: Yes, I would like my name to appear with my report on Publons

    Decision letter by
    Cite this decision letter
    Endorsed by
    Ongoing discussion (0 comments - click to toggle)
    Reviewer report
    2020/07/26

    The corrections to the comments were satisfactorily done. The variable HHHE in equation 1 (page 8) was NOT defined among the explanatory variables defined in the first paragraph of page 9. This is very minor (an omission). In my view the manuscript is of good quality.

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Endorsed by
    Ongoing discussion (0 comments - click to toggle)
    Reviewer report
    2020/06/22

    The authors successfully incorporated the comments.

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Endorsed by
    Ongoing discussion (0 comments - click to toggle)
    Author Response
    2020/06/22

    An indication of the western cape as the study area was a mistake the study covers the whole of South Africa and NIDS data covers all the provinces. It is National data and this has been corrected.


    This sentence was added as a correction to the issues raised by reviewer 1 on reporting all methods employed and report in the data analysis in the methodology


    The model does not include the two variables in one regression because of multicollinearity problem that result in a spurious result


    The model includes four static panels and one dynamic panel OLS.


    Comments: Yes! many literature sources are mentioned. However some sentences are not well articulated, for example on page 23 from line 8 to 14.
    "The former (Ricardian) households comprise both medium and Non-Ricardian households. The former (Ricardian households) comprise both medium-high-income households, which are involved in the financial market, participate in the buying of bonds or
    stocks, and are classified as saving households."


    Response: Consistency of definition was adjusted in page 11 and articulated


    Comments: Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts, or other ideas? Has the research or equivalent intellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate?: The statistical methods are fine. The methods appear to part of the literature review.


    Table 1. Some variables mentioned/stated on the specified model did not appear on Table 1. Educational Level of Household head and Household expenditure were stated on the specified model but were missing on table 1. Are there some reasons for that?
    Table 3. On this results table, all the 9 provinces are found there; however, they were nowhere stated among the explanatory variables on the model specified under methodology of the study. The results should reflect what were stated under the methodology section.
    The section under Table 3, line 34 & 35 states that there were 4 different data models which were used in the analyses. This is contrary to what was stated under the Model Estimation; which stated the number of models to be used as 3.
    On the same issue, looking at the results in Table 3, one could see results of 5 Models; also contradicting the 3 and 4 models mentioned above. Consistency on the number of models is required under Model Estimation, Table of results and discussion as well.
    On the same results Table 3, results of some variables specified in the model were not included. The excluded variables were Level of education of household head and HH Expenditure.


    Response: South Africa have 9provinces which covers all the country. The study area is the entire country. Since grant payment is national government strategy.


    This variable is log value of household expenditure included in the model. However, the result is very consistent with expectation and does not add much value to research then it was not interpreted. Also, the educational level of household head is not a significant variable among low income households as many them are uneducated or with low level of education attainment. It was excluded in the model.


    The model does not include the two variables in one regression because of multicollinearity problem that result to spurious result.


    The model includes four static panels and one dynamic panel OLS.


    Comment: The author/s might need to identify precisely the practical implications of this paper. Apart from localizing the theoretical discussion of saving behavior in South Africa, can the author/s explain further the values and implications of the research? For example is there any significant difference between their research results ad those they have discussed in literature review? Does the research carry any policy (anything practical) implication for the South Africa such as the distribution of the resources/income in the society/economy.


    Response: Additional value and practical implication of the paper:
    The research corroborates other studies on the effectiveness of the fiscal stimulus package to boost the welfare and savings condition of NRH in South Africa. The result explicitly confirmed the redistribution policy of the grant to the low-income household. The grant has a significant positive effect on the savings pattern of the household. An increase in it beyond the poverty threshold could indeed break the vicious circle of poverty since the effect does not only stop at expenditure but also pass through to savings, which may ultimately boost investment. Further studies should continue the investigation of grant transmission channels to investment and income.



    Cite this author response
    Endorsed by
    Ongoing discussion (0 comments - click to toggle)
  • pre-publication peer review (ROUND 1)
    Decision Letter
    2020/06/03

    03-Jun-2020


    Dear Dr. ABIOLA:


    Manuscript ID IJSE-11-2019-0692 entitled "Determinants of Savings among Non-Ricardian Households in South Africa" which you submitted to the International Journal of Social Economics, has been reviewed. The comments of the reviewer(s) are included at the bottom of this letter.


    The reviewer(s) have recommended revisions to the submitted manuscript, before it can be considered for publication. Therefore, I invite you to respond to the reviewer(s)' comments and revise your manuscript.


    To revise your manuscript, log into https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijsec and enter your Author Centre, where you will find your manuscript title listed under "Manuscripts with Decisions." Under "Actions," click on "Create a Revision." Your manuscript number has been appended to denote a revision.


    You will be unable to make your revisions on the originally submitted version of the manuscript. Instead, revise your manuscript using a word processing program and save it on your computer. Please also highlight the changes to your manuscript within the document by using the track changes mode in MS Word or by using bold or coloured text.


    Once the revised manuscript is prepared, you can upload it and submit it through your Author Centre. The deadline for uploading a revised manuscript is 04-Jul-2020 from receiving this email. If it is not possible for you to resubmit your revision within this timeframe, we may have to consider your paper as a new submission.


    When submitting your revised manuscript, you will be able to respond to the comments made by the reviewer(s) in the space provided. You can use this space to document any changes you make to the original manuscript. In order to expedite the processing of the revised manuscript, please be as specific as possible in your response to the reviewer(s).


    IMPORTANT: Your original files are available to you when you upload your revised manuscript. Please delete any redundant files before completing the submission.


    Please note that Emerald requires you to clear permission to re-use any material not created by you. If there are permissions outstanding, please send these to Emerald as soon as possible. Emerald is unable to publish your paper with permissions outstanding.


    Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to the International Journal of Social Economics and I look forward to receiving your revision.


    Sincerely,
    Dr. Richard Woodward
    Editor, International Journal of Social Economics
    ac0956@coventry.ac.uk


    Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
    Reviewer: 1


    Recommendation: Minor Revision


    Comments:
    The author/s might need to identify precisely the practical implications of this paper. Apart from localizing the theoretical discussion of saving behavior in South Africa, can the author/s explain further the values and implications of the research? For example is there any significant difference between their research results ad those they have discussed in literature review? Does the research carry any policy (anything practical) implication for the South Africa such as the distribution of the resources/income in the society/economy.


    Additional Questions:
    Originality: Does the paper contain new and significant information adequate to justify publication?: Not really. The saving function/behavior is well documented. Though the study examine saving behavior of low income households by applying the pooling OLS methodology. However the ultimate conclusion is the same as what other studies found. The paper was an incremental contribution to the literature regarding saving behavior especially regarding to the Non Recardian Households.


    Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored?: Yes! many literature sources are mentioned. However some sentences are not well articulated, for example on page 23 from line 8 to 14.
    "The former (Ricardian) households comprise both medium and Non-Ricardian households. The former (Ricardian households) comprise both medium-high-income households, which are involved in the financial market, participate in the buying of bonds or
    stocks, and are classified as saving households."


    Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts, or other ideas? Has the research or equivalent intellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate?: The statistical methods are fine. The methods appear to part of the literature review.


    Results: Are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: Yes! the results are very clear and the conclusions drawn are reasonable related the paper's main purpose.


    Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?: The author/s might need to identify precisely the practical implications of this paper. Apart from localizing the theoretical discussion of saving behavior in South Africa, can the author/s explain further the values and implications of the research? For example is there any significant difference between their research results ad those they have discussed in literature review? Does the research carry any policy (anything practical) implication for the South Africa such as the distribution of the resources/income in the society/economy.


    Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the field and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: The writing itself is fine.


    Reproducible Research: If appropriate, is sufficient information, potentially including data and software, provided to reproduce the results and are the corresponding datasets formally cited?:


    This journal is participating in Publons Transparent Peer Review. By reviewing for this journal, you agree that your finished report, along with the author’s responses and the Editor’s decision letter, will be linked to from the published article to where they appear on Publons, if the paper is accepted. If you have any concerns about participating in the Transparent Peer Review pilot, please reach out to the journal’s Editorial office. Please indicate below, whether you would like your name to appear with your report on Publons by indicating yes or no. All peer review content displayed here will be covered by a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license.: No, I would not like my name to appear with my report on Publons


    Reviewer: 2


    Recommendation: Minor Revision


    Comments:
    N/A


    Additional Questions:
    Originality: Does the paper contain new and significant information adequate to justify publication?: Yes


    Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored?: Yes


    Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts, or other ideas? Has the research or equivalent intellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate?: Yes


    Results: Are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: Yes


    Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?: Yes


    Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the field and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: Yes


    Reproducible Research: If appropriate, is sufficient information, potentially including data and software, provided to reproduce the results and are the corresponding datasets formally cited?: yes


    This journal is participating in Publons Transparent Peer Review. By reviewing for this journal, you agree that your finished report, along with the author’s responses and the Editor’s decision letter, will be linked to from the published article to where they appear on Publons, if the paper is accepted. If you have any concerns about participating in the Transparent Peer Review pilot, please reach out to the journal’s Editorial office. Please indicate below, whether you would like your name to appear with your report on Publons by indicating yes or no. All peer review content displayed here will be covered by a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license.: Yes, I would like my name to appear with my report on Publons

    Decision letter by
    Cite this decision letter
    Endorsed by
    Ongoing discussion (0 comments - click to toggle)
    Reviewer report
    2020/06/03

    N/A

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Endorsed by
    Ongoing discussion (0 comments - click to toggle)
    Reviewer report
    2020/04/09

    The author/s might need to identify precisely the practical implications of this paper. Apart from localizing the theoretical discussion of saving behavior in South Africa, can the author/s explain further the values and implications of the research? For example is there any significant difference between their research results ad those they have discussed in literature review? Does the research carry any policy (anything practical) implication for the South Africa such as the distribution of the resources/income in the society/economy.

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Endorsed by
    Ongoing discussion (0 comments - click to toggle)
All peer review content displayed here is covered by a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license.