A cross-sectional survey measuring effectiveness of fuel subsidy restructure in Malaysia

Yuen Yee Yen; Lai Jing Wen; Suganthi Ramasamy; Eka Puspitawati

doi:10.12688/f1000research.131920.1

Home Browse A cross-sectional survey measuring effectiveness of fuel subsidy restructure...

ALL Metrics

-

Views

-

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Research Article

A cross-sectional survey measuring effectiveness of fuel subsidy restructure in Malaysia

[version 1; peer review: 3 approved with reservations]

Yuen Yee Yen ¹, Lai Jing Wen¹, Suganthi Ramasamy¹, Eka Puspitawati²

PUBLISHED 20 Jun 2023

Author details Author details

¹ Faculty of Business, Multimedia University, Bukit Beruang, Melaka, 75450, Malaysia
² Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Pertamina, Jakarta, Jakarta, 12220, Indonesia

Yuen Yee Yen
Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Lai Jing Wen
Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Suganthi Ramasamy
Roles: Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

Eka Puspitawati
Roles: Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

Background: Out of the MYR 14 billion of fuel subsidy, the top 20% households (T20) in the country enjoy MYR 8 billion compared to MYR 6 billion of the fuel subsidy restructure enjoyed by the low income (B40) households. As the Malaysian government has started to restructure the fuel subsidy scheme in December 2022 when the national economy began to recover post coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, this study is in need as it highlights the key concerns of B40 and middle 40% (M40) households to the government. This research aims to determine key factors affecting fuel subsidy restructure effectiveness from the perspective of B40 and M40 households in Malaysia post COVID-19 pandemic.
Methods: A total of 150 questionnaires were disseminated to Malaysia B40 and M40 households. The questionnaire was completed by 105 households with no missing value. This paper utilized cross-sectional design to examine factors that contribute to fuel subsidy restructure in Malaysia post COVID-19 pandemic.
Results: Efficient targeting and social protection were the most important factor that contribute to the effectiveness of fuel subsidy restructure in Malaysia.
Conclusions: This research serves as the pioneer research to provide valuable insights to the Malaysian government to effectively restructure fuel subsidy initiative towards creating greater social protection, efficient targeting and better governance and administrative capacity in improving the quality of life of the B40 and M40 households.

Keywords

B40, M40, Fuel subsidy restructuring, Efficient targeting, Malaysia

Corresponding author: Yuen Yee Yen

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: This work was supported by Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia, Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (FRGS/1/2020/SS01/MMU/02/5) and Universitas Pertamina–Multimedia University (MMUE/210002).

Copyright: © 2023 Yee Yen Y et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Yee Yen Y, Jing Wen L, Ramasamy S and Puspitawati E. A cross-sectional survey measuring effectiveness of fuel subsidy restructure in Malaysia [version 1; peer review: 3 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2023, 12:704 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.131920.1) First published: 20 Jun 2023, 12:704 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.131920.1) Latest published: 20 Jun 2023, 12:704 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.131920.1)

Introduction

According to Ministry of Finance of Malaysia (2022), the Malaysian government spent substantial amount of MYR 14 billion to subsidize fuel in response to the surge in global commodity prices. The government has decided to subsidize fuel to maintain the price of RON 95 and diesel at affordable price of MYR 2.05 per L and MYR 2.15 per L respectively (Ministry of Finance, 2022). The government strives to support this increased spending on fuel subsidy to maintain the well-being of the low income (B40) people and the continuity of small businesses in the country (Ministry of Finance, 2022).

Unfortunately, out of the 14 billion of fuel subsidy, the top 20% households (T20) in the country, was enjoying MYR 8 billion compared to MYR 6 billion of the fuel subsidy restructure enjoyed by the low income households (Ministry of Finance, 2022). As revealed by the finance minister, under today’s blanket fuel subsidy, where everyone in the country enjoys the same flat rate, for every MYR 1 of fuel subsidy, MYR 53 cents go to the T20, while only MYR 15 cents benefit the B40 (Ministry of Finance, 2022).

This study is timely and important as Malaysia’s government is currently revising fuel subsidy mechanism before its implementation. As of today, there is lack of specific research in Malaysia to determine key factors affecting fuel subsidy restructure from the perspective of B40 and M40 households. As the Malaysian government has started to restructure the fuel subsidy scheme in December 2022 when the national economy begins to recover post COVID-19 pandemic (Ministry of Finance, 2022), this study is in need as it highlights the key concerns of B40 and M40 households to the government. As Malaysia government has recently promised that final decision of fuel subsidy restructure will only take place after majority of the people from B40 and M40 households are comfortable with the mechanism or the platform to execute it, this study is timely to propose valuable insights to the government from the perspectives of B40 and M40 households.

Literature review

Fuel subsidy restructure effectiveness

Fuel subsidy restructure effectiveness refers the successflness of government adminstration in where a fraction of the price that consumers are supposed to pay to enjoy the use of petroleum products is no longer paid by government to ease the price burden of the consumers, particularly high income households (Aleksandrova & Costella, 2021). The Malaysian government proposes to gradually rationalize fuel subsidy to narrow the spending gap between high income (T20), middle incone (M40) and low income (B40) households in the 2010–2015 Malaysia Plan. This fuel subsidy restructure is motivated by rising national budget deficit, increasing national debt and dwindling current account surplus (Institute for Sustainable Development [IISD], 2014).

Given the fact that out of the MYR 14 billion of fuel subsidy, the T20 households enjoyed MYR 8 billion while B40 households enjoyed less than RM6 billion of the fuel subsidy (Ministry of Finance, 2022), it is timely to investigate how B40 and M40 households think about fuel subsidy restructure and factors affecting the effectiveness of fuel subsidy restructure implementation.

Social protection

Social protection is an important determinant of fuel subsidy restructure effectiveness. Social protection refers to adequate housing, food, medical care, and financial assistance for daily life (Feltenstein, 2017). Fuel subsidy restructure are considered to be effective if it allows poor households to strive decent standard of living amid the rising of the global fuel prices (Dennis, 2016; Fuje, 2019). The middle income and the low income households are bound to suffer more loss to social protection when fuel subsidy restructure is not provided (Ilyas, Hussain, Ullah, & Xue, 2022). High income households with an average expenditure of MYR 3849.8 will lose MYR 269.5 in social protection when fuel subsidy restructure is implemented while the low income households with MYR 931 of average expenditure, will lose MYR 65.2 of the social protection due to fuel subsidy restructure (Couharde & Mouhoud, 2020). The lowest income household will obviously have substantial difficulties absorbing such a large social protection loss (Hunt, Weber, & Dordi, 2017).

Malaysia has been facing a lot of new challenges post coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in its developmental journey of moving away from the middle income trap (Ministry of Finance, 2022). To propel away from the middle income trap and advances into a high income nation, effective fuel restructure mechanism should be incorporated in the Government Transformation Programme and the New Economic Model, which are premised on bringing the nation towards a high income nation with great inclusiveness and effectiveness in term of social protection (Ministry of Finance, 2022). Adequate social protection should be provided to ensure that all layers in Malaysia society are able to unleash productivity-led growth and sustain inclusive and innovative development post COVID-19 pandemic (Khalid & Salman, 2020). Hence, the following hypothesis is formed and tested in this study:

H1: Social protection positively influences fuel subsidy restructure effectiveness

Governance and administrative capacity

Governance and administrative capacity is another important indicator in measuring the effectiveness of fuel subsidy restructure. According to Lin and Xu (2019), fuel subsidy restructure is considered as ineffective if governments are able to improve governance and administrative capacity on the infrastructure, education and health services of the nation. If governments can invest more on the infrastructure, education and health development of the nation by utilizing saving from the fuel subsidy restructure, then the fuel subsidy restructure are considered to be effective (Kyle, 2018).

According to Kojima (2016), governance and administrative capacity refers to the government’s continuous efforts in monitoring, evaluation and reflection of expenditure on public infrastructure to maintain the effectiveness of the fuel subsidy restructure. One example of governance and administrative capacity is to carefully plan massive transportation expansion projects while implementing fuel subsidy restructure among high income households (Li, Shi, & Su, 2017). Good governance and administration is the key capacity, which lower the cost-of-living of the low income households are most likely to enhance the effectiveness of the fuel subsidy restructure in the country (Institute for Sustainable Development [IISD], 2014).

Improving governance and administrative capacity is essential for economic transformation of the nation, as fuel subsidy needs to be restructured for high income households and well targeted for low income households who need fuel frequently to survive and to improve their well-beings (Ilyas, Hussain, Ullah, & Xu, 2022). For example, fossil fuel subsidy is more important in improving the living conditions of the poor as low income people use fossil fuel more frequently in daily life for cooking and heating (McCulloch, Moerenhout, & Yang, 2021). Good governance and administrative capacity is needed to ensure the standard of living of the low income people while phasing out fuel subsidy gradually in the country. Good governance and administrative capacity can also ensure less environmental pollution and more opportunity for education and economical productive activities following fuel subsidy restructure (McCulloch, Moerenhout, & Yang, 2021). Hence, the following hypothesis is formed and tested in this study:

H2: Governance and administrative capacity positively influences fuel subsidy restructure effectiveness

Publicity campaigns

Publicity campaigns aim to educate and promote understanding of the rationale for fuel subsidy restructure to Malaysian households (Couharde & Mouhoud, 2020). The more frequent the publicity campaigns are held, the more effective and transparent is the fuel subsidy restructure (Feltenstein, 2017). A significant barrier to fuel subsidy restructure can be a lack of understanding of fuel subsidy restructure and the inefficiency to promote the benefits of it to Malaysian households (Mundaca, 2017). Educating the citizens about the benefits of fuel subsidy restructure has been an important factor affecting the effectiveness of it in developing countries (Umar & Umar, 2013). Ilyas et al. (2022) discovered that one of the reasons for the failure to implement fuel subsidy restructure in Senegal was the lack of publicity campaigns.

Rentschler and Bazilian (2020) discovered that publicity campaigns create wider trust in government and enhance fuel subsidy restructure effectiveness. Ilyas et al. (2022) suggested establishing a publicity committee to promote legitimacy and trust in the fuel subsidy restructure is crucial for the success of the fuel subsidy in the nation. By communicating fuel subsidy restructure plans effectively to the public, governments can reduce the social pressure associated with the rising domestic fuel-price due to subsidy restructure. Public trust can also be improved if fuel subsidy restructure is tied with economic transformation of the country to establish a more rational structure of energy welfare (McCulloch, Moerenhout, & Yang, 2021). Hence, the following hypothesis is formed and tested in this study:

H3: Publicity campaigns positively influence fuel subsidy restructure effectiveness

Efficient targeting

Efficient targeting is important for fuel subsidy restructure effectiveness since it allows existing subsidized arrangements to be targeted to the neediest population. According to Loo and Mukaramah (2019), transferring the revenue received from the sales tax on fuel refinery products to the subsidy of the low income population to offset the increase in fuel price serves a great help to reduce the financial burden of the vulnerable populations. In addition, the government may also consider imposing a fuel tax on those with higher incomes, given that consumption rates among those with higher incomes are higher than those with lower incomes (Rentschler & Bazilian, 2020). Efficient targeting for the needy and taxing for the rich approach should be considered to preserve the government from fiscal imbalance (McCulloch, Moerenhout, & Yang, 2021).

Fuel subsidy in Malaysia are targeted to all citizens irrespective of their income. Inefficient targeting has led to wealthy families and organizations consume fuel more frequent than poor families (McCulloch, Moerenhout, & Yang, 2021). As high income households received more than half of the total subsidies (Schaffitzel, Jakob, Soria, Vogt-Schilb, & Ward, 2020), fuel subsidy in the country needs to be strategized.

Schaffitzel et al. (2020) discover that many countries have switched their subsidy systems from providing subsidy to the fuel distributor to providing a direct transfer to the targeted beneficiary. For instance, India adopted Aadhaar, a scheme based on a user database that can directly link fuel subsidy restructure to targeted recipients’ bank accounts (Kojima, 2016). According to Clarke (2016), fuel subsidy restructure must be carefully assessed to make sure that the targeted recipient can receive affordable, inexpensive and efficient fuel subsidy restructure. Hence, the following hypothesis is formed and tested in this study:

H4: Efficient targeting positively influences fuel subsidy restructure effectiveness

Knowledge gaps

In Malaysia, there is a lack of public poll inquiring the Malaysian viewpoint on fuel subsidy restructure effectiveness. One of the most recent polls conducted by the government 10 years ago showed that 61% of the Malaysia public supported fuel subsidy restructure (Institute for Sustainable Development [IISD], 2014). As the Malaysian government has started to restructure the fuel subsidy scheme in December 2022 when the national economy begins to recover post COVID-19 pandemic (Ministry of Finance, 2022), this study is in need as it highlights the key concerns of B40 and M40 households to the government.

Methods

This research was conducted by a group of researchers who have sound experience in approaching 150 B40 and M40 households at a specific point in time from January 2022 to July 2022. According to World Food Programme (2023), based on experience from many subsidy-related surveys, a sample size of 150 households is considered to be sufficient and representable. The respondents were approached face-to-face, door-to-door to ensure the purpose of this study is clearly communicated to the respondents prior to the data collection.

Ethics statement

Ethical approval was obtained for this project from the Research Ethics Committee (REC) Multimedia University (Ethical Approval Number: EA1312021). Written informed consent was obtained from participants for participation and the use of and publication of their anonymized data. A written consent statement was printed on the survey. Respondents were required to tick the written consent form before they started the survey.

Study design

This is a quantitative research using primary survey dataset to explore fuel subsidy restructure effectiveness in Malaysia post COVID-19 pandemic (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Research framework.

Sampling and pre-testing

In this research, purposive sampling was used to recruit suitable survey respondents. Purposive sampling refers to selecting target respondents based on characteristics of a population and the objective of the study. Purposive sampling was used to select suitable B40 and M40 households. The target household for this study must have households with income less than MYR 4850 (B40 households) and between MYR 4850 and MYR 10959 (M40 households). B40 and M40 households are targeted in this study as they are the most affected households of fuel subsidy restructure. From January 2022 to July 2022, a questionnaire was developed and distributed face-to-face to 150 B40 and M40 households of three states that have the largest population of fuel subsidy beneficiaries in Malaysia: Selangor, Johor and Kuala Lumpur, according to Ministry of Finance (2022). In order to address survey bias, the questionnaire was meticulously checked by one independent academic and two independent industry experts, who have no personal relationship with any of the authors, to avoid leading questions, ambiguous questions and double-barrel questions. Researchers has no conflict of interest with any of the survey participants. Ethical clearance is applied before the data collection and clearly explained to the respondents prior to the data collection.

Pre-testing validation was conducted face-to-face to ensure that the target respondents are originated from B40 and M40 households. By collecting data face-to-face, it results in lower error as all doubts can be explained at the first place. When error and survey bias are low, the data will be reliable and generalizable.

Data collection

A total of 150 questionnaires were disseminated to households. The target household for this study must have households with income less than MYR 4850 (B40 households) and between MYR 4850 and MYR 10959 (M40 households).

Data collection period of this study was from September 2021 to November 2022. The data was collected through a self-administered questionnaire. Data was collected face-to-face from B40 and M40 households of three states that have the largest population of fuel subsidy beneficiaries in Malaysia: Selangor, Johor and Kuala Lumpur immediately after they have answered the questionnaire. Questionnaires with incomplete responses were discarded from the data analysis.

Questionnaire consists of 30 questions measuring fuel subsidy restructure, social protection, governance and administrative capacity, public campaign and efficient targeting. Respondents were requested to rate each question using on a five Likert scale basis, with 1-strongly disagree, 2-disagree, 3-moderate, 4-agree and 5-strongly agree. Please refer to the underlying data and extended data for the details of the questionnaire (Yuen, 2023a, 2023b).

Analysis

This study used statistical software package, IBM SPSS Statistics version 23.0 to process and analyze the data, IBM SPSS Statistics Version 23.0 was employed for data screening for Common Method Variance (CMV) was used in data screening to eliminate bias caused by the variations in responses to the questionnaire. IBM SPSS Statistics Version 23.0 was also utilized to perform multiple linear regression analysis to examine the most important factors affecting the effectiveness of fuel subsidy reform in Malaysia. The open source alternative to IBM SPSS Statistics is PSPP, which provides equivalent analytical capability.

The R-square value of the multiple linear regression analysis is a statistical measure used to determine how close the data are to the fitted regression. The higher the R-squared, the better the model.

Results

Descriptive statistics in Table 1 indicates that one hundred and five B40 and M40 households completed the questionnaire with no missing value. Out of 105, 56 were M40 households and 49 were B40 households. The dataset for this study can be found in the underlying data (Yuen, 2023a). B40 households with income less than MYR 4850 and M40 households earn income between MYR 4850 and MYR 10959.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics.

Households	Frequency	Percentage
B40 Households	49	46.67
M40 Households	56	53.33

Inferential statistics in Table 2 indicate that M40 households were more likely to welcome fuel subsidy restructure in Malaysia (mean rating=4.04) compared to B40 households (mean rating=3.89). There was a significant difference in terms of the perception of subsidy restructure effectiveness. M40 households perceive the current government effort to rationalize fuel subsidy as significantly more effective compared to B40 households.

Table 2. B40 Households’ and M40 Households’ perceptions on fuel subsidy restructure.

Factor	Households	N	Mean	Standard deviation	t-statistics	p-value
Fuel subsidy restructure effectiveness	B40	178	3.8910	0.62348	2.342	0.020**
Fuel subsidy restructure effectiveness	M40	122	4.0492	0.53832	2.342	0.020**
Governance and administrative capacity	B40	178	3.9517	0.63221	1.494	0.136
Governance and administrative capacity	M40	122	4.0574	0.55476	1.494	0.136
Efficient targeting	B40	178	3.8427	0.66484	2.138	0.033**
Efficient targeting	M40	122	4.0049	0.63217	2.138	0.033**
Social protection	B40	178	3.9978	0.57243	1.961	0.047**
Social protection	M40	122	4.1262	0.54679	1.961	0.047**
Publicity campaign	B40	178	3.8978	0.71977	0.683	0.495
Publicity campaign	M40	122	3.9508	0.56411	0.683	0.495

** Significant at 0.05 level.

Compared to B40 households (mean rating=3.84), M40 households (mean rating=4.01) gave significantly higher rating on the importance of efficient targeting in influencing the effectiveness of fuel subsidy restructure. M40 households were also more inclined to think social protection is more significantly important (mean rating=3.97) in influencing the effectiveness of the fuel subsidy restructure.

B40 and M40 households are equally concerned about the importance of governance and administrative capacity in influencing the effectiveness of the fuel subsidy restructure.

Multiple linear regression analysis was conducted to determine the predictive influence of the key factors affecting fuel subsidy restructure effectiveness. Multiple linear regression is more powerful than correlational analysis as it analyses the correlation and directionality of all tested factors before proposing a comprehensive model. From the perspectives of both M40 and B40 households, multiple linear regression results in Table 3 show that efficient targeting was the most important factor (Standardized Beta Coefficient=0.368) that contributes to the effectiveness of fuel subsidy restructure in Malaysia. Social protection was the second most important factor (Standardized Beta Coefficient=0.314) that contributes to the effectiveness of fuel subsidy restructure. Governance and administrative capacity was the third most important factor (Standardized Beta Coefficient=0.128) while publicity campaign was the fourth most important factor (Standardized Beta Coefficient=0.115) that contributes to the effectiveness of fuel subsidy restructure. All four factors studied in this research are found to be significantly influence the effectiveness of fuel subsidy restructure. All these four factors explain 62.3% of the variance in fuel subsidy restructure effectiveness. Hence, H1 to H4 are supported.

Table 3. Key factors that contribute to the effectiveness of fuel subsidy restructure in Malaysia post COVID-19 pandemic.

Ranking of importance	Factor	Beta coefficient	Standardized beta coefficient	p-value	R²
2	Social protection	0.510	0.314	***	0.623
3	Governance and administrative capacity	0.220	0.128	0.028**
4	Publicity campaign	0.200	0.115	0.050**
1	Efficient targeting	0.570	0.368	***

*** Significant at 0.01 level.

** Significant at 0.05 level.

Discussion and recommendation

This study aims to determine key factors affecting fuel subsidy restructure effectiveness from the perspective of B40 and M40 households in Malaysia post COVID-19 pandemic. Efficient targeting was perceive the most important factor affecting the effectiveness of fuel subsidy restructure post COVID-19 pandemic because the high income households continue to enjoy fuel subsidy while B40 and M40 families are losing jobs and income due to the pandemic (Ilyas et al., 2022). The middle income (M40) households were the most significantly affected households of fuel subsidy restructure as this households of household receive the least financial and economic assistance from the government and society, especially post COVID-19 pandemic (Kyle, 2018; Ministry of Finance, 2022). This explains why M40 households express greater concern on the importance of efficient targeting in determining the effectiveness of fuel subsidy restructure compared to the low income households.

Social protection was the second most important factor affecting the effectiveness of fuel subsidy restructure in Malaysia from the perspective of B40 and M40 households. The Malaysian government should provide social protection measures such as cash transfers to manage the adverse risks of fuel subsidy restructure for vulnerable households to increase B40 and M40 households’ acceptance of restructure. The effectiveness of fuel subsidy restructure depends on social protection mechanisms for fuel pricing (Lin & Xu, 2019). Lump-sum transfers, which are paid uniformly to B40 and M40 households every year funded by fuel subsidy restructure revenues, are a significantly more equitable and efficient way of social protection (Khalid & Salman, 2020). Besides reducing poverty rates, universal transfer can also enhance the resilience of B40 and M40 households towards coping the economic challenges post COVID-19 pandemic (Schaffitzel et al., 2020).

Governance and administrative capacity was the third most important factor affecting the effectiveness of fuel subsidy restructure in Malaysia from the perspective of B40 and M40 households. Government should strengthen fuel subsidy governance and administrative capacity by introducing post COVID-19 relief measures that incentivize B40 and M40 households to reduce their fuel consumption. Good governance and administrative is in need to support fuel usage to households to compensate fossil-fuel heating cost (Mundaca, 2017). Potential savings in fuel restructure subsidy should not be whittled away and discriminated in favour of car owners, as opposed to motorcycle owners (Fuje, 2019). Good governance and administrative capacity is also important to ensure that B40 and M40 consumers reap benefits from the saving relocation of fuel subsidy restructure to cope with higher fuel prices successfully in the long run.

Publicity campaign was the fourth most important factor affecting the effectiveness of fuel subsidy restructure in Malaysia from the perspective of B40 and M40 households. The government needs to ensure public trust in the fuel subsidy restructure through clear and broad public communication before deciding the appropriate timing of subsidy restructure. Explaining the need for change and the compensating measures clearly to the public through mass media and social media before the fuel subsidy restructure is introduced. Clear communication to the poor and middle income households who will be most affected by the subsidy restructure can help minimize public opposition to fuel subsidy restructure because B40 and M40 households who receive subsidized fuel are often not even aware that government in fact subsidizes their consumption (Kojima, 2016; McCulloch, Moerenhout, & Yang, 2021).

Unique contributions of this research

This research is the pioneer research in Malaysia that provides comprehensive information and valuable recommendations that contribute to the effectiveness of petrol subsidy restructure post COVID-19 pandemic. This research helps Malaysia government to effectively restructure fuel subsidy initiative towards creating greater social protection, efficient targeting and better governance and administrative capacity in improving the quality of life of the B40 and M40 households. Comprehensive insights and recommendations are provided to assist the Malaysian government to analyze their impact of fuel subsidy restructure on B40 and M40 households to effectively plan and communicate the fuel subsidy restructure mechanism in the next few years.

Data availability

Underlying data

Figshare: Fuel Subsidy Restructure Effectiveness. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.22144838 (Yuen, 2023a).

This project contains the following underlying data:

- FuelSubsidyRestructuredata.xlsx (Survey data)

Extended data

Figshare: FuelSubsidyRestuctureQuestionnaire.doc. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.22492720 (Yuen 2023b).

This project contains the following extended data:

- Questionnaire.docx

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).

References

Aleksandrova M, Costella C: Reaching the poorest and most vulnerable: addressing loss and damage through social protection. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2021; 50: 121–128. Publisher Full Text
Clarke K: Estimating the Impact of Price Reforms on Kerosene Subsidy Expenditure in India. 2016. Reference Source
Couharde C, Mouhoud S: Fossil fuel subsidy, income inequality, and poverty: Evidence from developing countries. J. Econ. Surv. 2020; 34: 981–1006. Publisher Full Text
Dennis A: Social protection implications of fossil fuel subsidy restructure in developing countries. Energy Policy. 2016; 96: 597–606. Publisher Full Text
Feltenstein A: Subsidy restructure and implications for social protection: An analysis of IMF advice on food and fuel subsidy. IEO Background Paper No. BP/17-01/02 (Washington: International Monetary Fund). 2017.
Fuje H: Fossil fuel subsidy reforms, spatial market integration, and welfare: evidence from a natural experiment in Ethiopia. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2019; 101: 270–290. Publisher Full Text
Hunt C, Weber O, Dordi T: A comparative analysis of the anti-Apartheid and fossil fuel divestment campaign. J. Sustain. Finance Invest. 2017; 7: 64–81. Publisher Full Text
Ilyas R, Hussain K, Ullah MZ, et al.: Distributional impact of phasing out residential electricity subsidy on household welfare. Energy Policy. 2022; 163: 112825. Publisher Full Text
Institute for Sustainable Development [IISD]: Lessons Learned: Malaysia’s 2013 Fuel Subsidy Reform. 2014. Reference Source
Khalid SA, Salman V: Welfare impact of electricity subsidy restructure in Pakistan: a micro model study. Energy Policy. 2020; 137: 111097. Publisher Full Text
Kojima M: Fossil fuel subsidy and pricing policies: recent developing country experience. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper. 2016; 7531. Publisher Full Text
Kyle J: Local corruption and popular support for fuel subsidy restructure in Indonesia. Comp. Pol. Stud. 2018; 51: 1472–1503. Publisher Full Text
Li Y, Shi X, Su B: Economic, social and environmental impacts of fuel subsidy: A revisit of Malaysia. Energy Policy. 2017; 110: 51–61. Publisher Full Text
Lin B, Xu M: Good subsidies or bad subsidies? Evidence from low-carbon transition in China’s metallurgical industry. Energy Econ. 2019; 83: 52–60. Publisher Full Text
Loo SY, Mukaramah L: Fuel subsidy abolition and performance of the sectors in Malaysia: A computable general equilibrium approach. Malays. J. Econ. Stud. 2019; 56(2): 303–326. Publisher Full Text
McCulloch N, Moerenhout T, Yang J: Fuel subsidy reform and the social contract in Nigeria: A micro-economic analysis. Energy Policy. 2021; 156: 112336. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Ministry of Finance: Largest ever Subsidy of RM77.3 bln for 2022 to Reduce Cost of Living for the People. 2022. Reference Source
Mundaca G: Energy subsidy, public investment and endogenous growth. Energy Policy. 2017; 110: 693–709. Publisher Full Text
Rentschler J, Bazilian M: Policy monitor—principles for designing effective fossil fuel subsidy restructure. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy. 2020; 11: 138–155. Publisher Full Text
Schaffitzel F, Jakob M, Soria R, et al.: Can government transfers make energy subsidy restructure socially acceptable? A case study on Ecuador. Energy Policy. 2020; 137: 111120. Publisher Full Text
World Food Programme: Selection of Households or Individuals within Locations. 2023. Reference Source
Umar HM, Umar MS: An assessment of the direct welfare impact of fuel subsidy restructure in Nigeria. Am. J. Econ. 2013; 3: 23–26.
Yuen YY: Fuel Subsidy Restructure Effectiveness. [Dataset]. Figshare. 2023a. Publisher Full Text
Yuen YY: FuelSubsidyRestuctureQuestionnaire. [Dataset]. Figshare. 2023b. Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 20 Jun 2023

Author details Author details

¹ Faculty of Business, Multimedia University, Bukit Beruang, Melaka, 75450, Malaysia
² Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Pertamina, Jakarta, Jakarta, 12220, Indonesia

Yuen Yee Yen
Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Lai Jing Wen
Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Suganthi Ramasamy
Roles: Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

Eka Puspitawati
Roles: Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

This work was supported by Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia, Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (FRGS/1/2020/SS01/MMU/02/5) and Universitas Pertamina–Multimedia University (MMUE/210002).

Article Versions (1)

version 1

Published: 20 Jun 2023, 12:704

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.131920.1

Copyright

© 2023 Yee Yen Y et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

0

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Yee Yen Y, Jing Wen L, Ramasamy S and Puspitawati E. A cross-sectional survey measuring effectiveness of fuel subsidy restructure in Malaysia [version 1; peer review: 3 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2023, 12:704 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.131920.1)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?

Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE

ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 20 Jun 2023

Views

5

Reviewer Report 30 Oct 2023

Ronald Steenblik, Senior Technical Advisor, Sustainable and Just Economic Systems (SJES), Quaker United Nations Office Geneva, Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.144809.r212307

The type of analysis provided by the paper is useful for informing the reform of fuel subsidies in Malaysia (and elsewhere), but the paper over-stresses the point. The authors certainly should not repeat the claim themselves (as they do several ... Continue reading

The type of analysis provided by the paper is useful for informing the reform of fuel subsidies in Malaysia (and elsewhere), but the paper over-stresses the point. The authors certainly should not repeat the claim themselves (as they do several times). Is suffices to confine such self-evaluation to the last section ("Unique contributions of this research").

In general, the paper could benefit from a substantial edit, both to improve the English and to make it much more concise. The paper is marred by considerable repetition. With judicious editing its length could be reduced by at least one-third, possibly by one half.

I would suggest that the authors speak of "fossil fuel subsidy reform" rather than "fossil fuel subsidy restructure" or "... restructuring". The former terminology is much more common and more likely to be located by searches on the topic.

Introduction

Throughout the document, beginning with the Introduction, I would suggest providing USD equivalents within parentheses following the amount in Malaysian Ringgit (MYR), such as "MYR 14 billion (USD 3.4 billion)". In the first sentence, the year in which the MYR 14 billion was spent (2021? 2022?) needs to be specified. The currency (MYR) should be specified everywhere; it is missing, for example, in the opening sentence of the second paragraph.

I would suggest also spelling out abbreviations the first time they occur, including RON 95, which stands for "premium petrol or gasoline with a research octane number of 95".

The first sentence if the third paragraph is redundant and can be deleted.

Literature review

This section is not so much a literature review as a restating of earlier points. Moreover, it is unclear to this reader why a an observation made in a paper from 2014 is used to explain the motivation behind the recent (post-Covid-19) fuel price reforms.

Social protection

The authors seem to use the term "social protection" both with respect to assurance of the necessities of life (2nd sentence of first paragraph in this section) and the amount of fuel-subsidy benefits (5th sentence of the same paragraph). That sows confusion later on in the paper. The authors should also avoid too many significant digits when citing statistics that are unlikely to be precise — e.g., they should round the average expenditure of high-income households from MYR 3849.8 to MYR 3850.

Governance and administrative capacity

I find this section confusing, likely because some of the words are misused. The second sentence ("According to Lin and Xu ...") makes no sense to me. I think the authors mean "unable" not "able". But in any case, if the governance (of what?) and "administrative capacity on" (?) the infrastructure, education and health services of the nation are neither improved nor made worse as a result of fuel-subsidy reform, how does that render the reform ineffective? I am equally unsure of the point the authors are trying to make in the opening sentence of the 2nd paragraph.

In the third paragraph, the authors assert that "fossil fuel subsidy is more important in improving the living conditions of the poor as low income people use fossil fuel more frequently in daily life for cooking and heating". Are they referring to Malaysia? Because in the section on Efficient Targeting, the authors state, citing the same source, that "Inefficient targeting has led to wealthy families and organizations consum[ing] fuel more frequent than poor families." I can understand that fuel costs likely constitute a larger share of a poor household's expenditure than of a wealthy household's, but that in terms of total benefits (in MYR), the more wealthy households benefit more. But if that is the case then the point needs to be made more clearly, ideally backing it up with actual data specific to Malaysia.

Efficient targeting

The penultimate sentence in this section needs rewording. Currently it ends with "the targeted recipient can receive affordable, inexpensive and efficient fuel subsidy restructure". Come again?

Knowledge gaps

This section provides very little information. It speaks of a "recent poll" but cites a source that is now nine years old. And then it ends with a sentence that simply repeats information about the reform programme already provided earlier.

Methods

The opening sentence of this section needs rewriting for clarity. I think the authors mean something like "This research was conducted by an experienced group of researchers, who approached 150 B40 and M40 households between January and July 2022."

Sampling and pre-testing

I would add in parentheses after the first mention of purposive sampling: "(also known as judgment, selective or subjective sampling)". The time period of the cited houshold income categories — annual, I presume — needs to be specified.

In the last paragraph in this section, I would recommend changing the first sentence to "Pre-testing validation was conducted face-to-face to ensure that the target respondents belonged to B40 or M40 households", instead of "... originated from B40 and M40 households". In the last sentence, I'd change "... the data will be reliable and generalizable" to "... the data will more likely be reliable and generalisable".

Data collection

This section is characterised by considerable repetition of previous statements.

Results

Again, there is a fair amount of repetition in this section.

Often what were the questions in the questionnaire that respondents were asked to respond to is hard to discern in the English-language version (https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/FuelSubsidyRestuctureQuestionnaire/22492720), which has been roughly translated at best. Because of the rough translation it is hard for me to judge whether in many cases the questions were appropriate and would lead to unambiguous results. In the case of "Section C: Governance and Administrative Capacity", for example, some of the questions bear little relation to the discussion earlier in the text under the heading of "Governance and administrative capacity", and some of the questions seem more pertinent to social protection than governance or administrative capacity.

Discussion and recommendation

While the findings seem logical, apart from the ranking of importance of general factors (Table 3), I find it difficult to relate the detailed recommendations to the numerical results, which seem to rely as much or more more on findings in other studies.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

No
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: My areas of expertise include subsidy analysis and subsidy reforms. I previously served as the OECD's Special Counsellor for Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform. I am now a non-resident Senior Technical Advisor to the Sustainable and Just Economic Systems programme of the Quaker United Nations Office (QUNO) in Geneva.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Views

3

Reviewer Report 19 Oct 2023

Theresia Betty Sumarno, Aberdeen Business School, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.144809.r212289

There are some typos in the current work. The work needs a good proofread (for example succesflness, adminstration, incone, etc.). The way some statements being phrased could have been made clear. For example the last paragraph on the Introduction:
... Continue reading

There are some typos in the current work. The work needs a good proofread (for example succesflness, adminstration, incone, etc.). The way some statements being phrased could have been made clear. For example the last paragraph on the Introduction:

"Given the fact that out of the MYR 14 billion of fuel subsidy, the T20 households enjoyed MYR 8 billion while B40 households enjoyed less than RM6 billion of the fuel subsidy (Ministry of Finance, 2022), it is timely to investigate how B40 and M40 households think about fuel subsidy restructure and factors affecting the effectiveness of fuel subsidy restructure".

"The middle income and the low income households are bound to suffer more loss to social protection when fuel subsidy restructure is not provided" --> this statement is unclear. what fuel subsidy restructure? Do you mean the social protection? Proofreading will help to prevent this type of unclear statement.

I will also highlight the value of the subsidy - it would have been better to have a USD equivalent to add more understanding for people from other countries.

The statistical result analysis could have been more in-depth by having some more literature study to support the discussion.

The justification of the cities being selected in the sample is needed. Why did the authors only do the three cities?

The implementation of the current fossil fuel subsidy needs to be explained further. As for now, I am not sure if the Government of Malaysia applies one price for all cities in the country, or if they could be different from one to another.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Fossil fuel subsidy policy (reforms), carbon tax, energy taxation, energy fiscal policies, energy economics, climate change and sustainability, global business.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Views

5

Reviewer Report 03 Oct 2023

Muhammad Safwan Ibrahim, Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia, Nilai, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.144809.r206492

The manuscript shows a lot of promise but requires several revisions to improve clarity and overall quality before publication. The detailed comments and suggestions for enhancing the paper are given below:

Introduction

Paragraph 1, ... Continue reading

The manuscript shows a lot of promise but requires several revisions to improve clarity and overall quality before publication. The detailed comments and suggestions for enhancing the paper are given below:

Introduction

Paragraph 1, line 3: Writing the full word "liter" in academic writing is better. This makes the writing more formal and easier to read.

Paragraph 1-3: I noticed that you only used one reference in the introduction. It is generally recommended to use multiple references in the introduction to support your claims and show that you understand the current state of knowledge on the topic.

I found the introduction to be somewhat lacking in clarity. The main objective of the paper is not immediately apparent, and the reader is left wondering what the paper is trying to achieve. I recommend that you revise the introduction by clearly stating the objectives and providing a concise overview of the research problem and key challenges.

Literature review

(Fuel subsidy restructure effectiveness) Paragraph 1, Lines 3 -5: It is better if you can provide the reference. Maybe the author can cite the 2010-2015 Malaysia Plan report.

(Governance and administrative capacity) Paragraph 3, Lines 3-5: Are you sure that fossil fuel is used for cooking? Is this situation referred to as the Malaysia situation?

Methods

Paragraph 1, Line 3: I think you need to have more references to justify your sample size, or you need to determine by yourself the number of sample sizes. You must also explain how you distribute the questionnaire to each state accordingly.

(Sampling and pre-testing) Paragraph 2, Lines 1-3: How many samples do you use for pre-testing validation? How can collecting data face-to-face, it can result in lower errors? Which references do you refer to that say that when error and survey bias are low, the data will be reliable and generalizable?
(Data collection) Paragraphs 1-2: Redundant paragraph. In paragraph 2, you say the study was conducted from September 2021 to November 2022. However, in paragraph 1 (under section Method), you say that the research was conducted from January 2022 to July 2022. So which one is true?
(Analysis) Paragraph 2: Please elaborate further on how you analyse it using multiple linear regression. The current paragraph is too short and lacks clarity.

Results

Paragraph 1, line 1: I noticed that you sometimes write numbers in numerals (e.g., 105) and sometimes in words (e.g., one hundred and five). I recommend that you be consistent in your use of numbers throughout the manuscript.

Paragraph 1, line 3: Redundant sentence.

Table 1 does not show full information about the demographics of the respondents. For example, there is no information about the number of respondents from each state (Selangor, Johor, Kuala Lumpur). I think the household size, gender and race also should be included in the respondents' demographic.
Table 3: No P-value for social protection and efficient targeting. If the p-value is too small, you can write it as <0.01.
Paragraph 4, Last line: What justification do you use to say that H1-H4 are supported? I think you should elaborate in more detail.

Discussion and recommendation

The discussion can be further improved by more clearly explaining the implications of the findings towards Malaysia.

Conclusion

The conclusion could be made clearer by summarizing the main findings of the study and reiterating the implications of the findings.

In summary, this paper has the potential to make a valuable contribution to the field but requires significant revisions to improve clarity, coherence, and depth. Addressing the reviewer's comments and suggestions will enhance the quality and impact of the paper.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

No
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Time series and statistical modelling

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 20 Jun 2023

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2	3
Version 1 20 Jun 23	read	read	read

Muhammad Safwan Ibrahim, Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia, Nilai, Malaysia
Theresia Betty Sumarno, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, UK
Ronald Steenblik, Quaker United Nations Office Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Sign up for content alerts

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

5 Views

30 Oct 2023 | for Version 1

Ronald Steenblik, Senior Technical Advisor, Sustainable and Just Economic Systems (SJES), Quaker United Nations Office Geneva, Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland

5 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved With Reservations

The type of analysis provided by the paper is useful for informing the reform of fuel subsidies in Malaysia (and elsewhere), but the paper over-stresses the point. The authors certainly should not repeat the claim themselves (as they do several times). Is suffices to confine such self-evaluation to the last section ("Unique contributions of this research").

In general, the paper could benefit from a substantial edit, both to improve the English and to make it much more concise. The paper is marred by considerable repetition. With judicious editing its length could be reduced by at least one-third, possibly by one half.

I would suggest that the authors speak of "fossil fuel subsidy reform" rather than "fossil fuel subsidy restructure" or "... restructuring". The former terminology is much more common and more likely to be located by searches on the topic.

Introduction

Throughout the document, beginning with the Introduction, I would suggest providing USD equivalents within parentheses following the amount in Malaysian Ringgit (MYR), such as "MYR 14 billion (USD 3.4 billion)". In the first sentence, the year in which the MYR 14 billion was spent (2021? 2022?) needs to be specified. The currency (MYR) should be specified everywhere; it is missing, for example, in the opening sentence of the second paragraph.

I would suggest also spelling out abbreviations the first time they occur, including RON 95, which stands for "premium petrol or gasoline with a research octane number of 95".

The first sentence if the third paragraph is redundant and can be deleted.

Literature review

This section is not so much a literature review as a restating of earlier points. Moreover, it is unclear to this reader why a an observation made in a paper from 2014 is used to explain the motivation behind the recent (post-Covid-19) fuel price reforms.

Social protection

The authors seem to use the term "social protection" both with respect to assurance of the necessities of life (2nd sentence of first paragraph in this section) and the amount of fuel-subsidy benefits (5th sentence of the same paragraph). That sows confusion later on in the paper. The authors should also avoid too many significant digits when citing statistics that are unlikely to be precise — e.g., they should round the average expenditure of high-income households from MYR 3849.8 to MYR 3850.

Governance and administrative capacity

I find this section confusing, likely because some of the words are misused. The second sentence ("According to Lin and Xu ...") makes no sense to me. I think the authors mean "unable" not "able". But in any case, if the governance (of what?) and "administrative capacity on" (?) the infrastructure, education and health services of the nation are neither improved nor made worse as a result of fuel-subsidy reform, how does that render the reform ineffective? I am equally unsure of the point the authors are trying to make in the opening sentence of the 2nd paragraph.

In the third paragraph, the authors assert that "fossil fuel subsidy is more important in improving the living conditions of the poor as low income people use fossil fuel more frequently in daily life for cooking and heating". Are they referring to Malaysia? Because in the section on Efficient Targeting, the authors state, citing the same source, that "Inefficient targeting has led to wealthy families and organizations consum[ing] fuel more frequent than poor families." I can understand that fuel costs likely constitute a larger share of a poor household's expenditure than of a wealthy household's, but that in terms of total benefits (in MYR), the more wealthy households benefit more. But if that is the case then the point needs to be made more clearly, ideally backing it up with actual data specific to Malaysia.

Efficient targeting

The penultimate sentence in this section needs rewording. Currently it ends with "the targeted recipient can receive affordable, inexpensive and efficient fuel subsidy restructure". Come again?

Knowledge gaps

This section provides very little information. It speaks of a "recent poll" but cites a source that is now nine years old. And then it ends with a sentence that simply repeats information about the reform programme already provided earlier.

Methods

The opening sentence of this section needs rewriting for clarity. I think the authors mean something like "This research was conducted by an experienced group of researchers, who approached 150 B40 and M40 households between January and July 2022."

Sampling and pre-testing

I would add in parentheses after the first mention of purposive sampling: "(also known as judgment, selective or subjective sampling)". The time period of the cited houshold income categories — annual, I presume — needs to be specified.

In the last paragraph in this section, I would recommend changing the first sentence to "Pre-testing validation was conducted face-to-face to ensure that the target respondents belonged to B40 or M40 households", instead of "... originated from B40 and M40 households". In the last sentence, I'd change "... the data will be reliable and generalizable" to "... the data will more likely be reliable and generalisable".

Data collection

This section is characterised by considerable repetition of previous statements.

Results

Again, there is a fair amount of repetition in this section.

Often what were the questions in the questionnaire that respondents were asked to respond to is hard to discern in the English-language version (https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/FuelSubsidyRestuctureQuestionnaire/22492720), which has been roughly translated at best. Because of the rough translation it is hard for me to judge whether in many cases the questions were appropriate and would lead to unambiguous results. In the case of "Section C: Governance and Administrative Capacity", for example, some of the questions bear little relation to the discussion earlier in the text under the heading of "Governance and administrative capacity", and some of the questions seem more pertinent to social protection than governance or administrative capacity.

Discussion and recommendation

While the findings seem logical, apart from the ranking of importance of general factors (Table 3), I find it difficult to relate the detailed recommendations to the numerical results, which seem to rely as much or more more on findings in other studies.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

No
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

My areas of expertise include subsidy analysis and subsidy reforms. I previously served as the OECD's Special Counsellor for Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform. I am now a non-resident Senior Technical Advisor to the Sustainable and Just Economic Systems programme of the Quaker United Nations Office (QUNO) in Geneva.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

3 Views

19 Oct 2023 | for Version 1

Theresia Betty Sumarno, Aberdeen Business School, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK

3 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved With Reservations

There are some typos in the current work. The work needs a good proofread (for example succesflness, adminstration, incone, etc.). The way some statements being phrased could have been made clear. For example the last paragraph on the Introduction:

"Given the fact that out of the MYR 14 billion of fuel subsidy, the T20 households enjoyed MYR 8 billion while B40 households enjoyed less than RM6 billion of the fuel subsidy (Ministry of Finance, 2022), it is timely to investigate how B40 and M40 households think about fuel subsidy restructure and factors affecting the effectiveness of fuel subsidy restructure".

"The middle income and the low income households are bound to suffer more loss to social protection when fuel subsidy restructure is not provided" --> this statement is unclear. what fuel subsidy restructure? Do you mean the social protection? Proofreading will help to prevent this type of unclear statement.

I will also highlight the value of the subsidy - it would have been better to have a USD equivalent to add more understanding for people from other countries.

The statistical result analysis could have been more in-depth by having some more literature study to support the discussion.

The justification of the cities being selected in the sample is needed. Why did the authors only do the three cities?

The implementation of the current fossil fuel subsidy needs to be explained further. As for now, I am not sure if the Government of Malaysia applies one price for all cities in the country, or if they could be different from one to another.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Fossil fuel subsidy policy (reforms), carbon tax, energy taxation, energy fiscal policies, energy economics, climate change and sustainability, global business.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

5 Views

03 Oct 2023 | for Version 1

Muhammad Safwan Ibrahim, Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia, Nilai, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia

5 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved With Reservations

The manuscript shows a lot of promise but requires several revisions to improve clarity and overall quality before publication. The detailed comments and suggestions for enhancing the paper are given below:

Introduction

Paragraph 1, line 3: Writing the full word "liter" in academic writing is better. This makes the writing more formal and easier to read.

Paragraph 1-3: I noticed that you only used one reference in the introduction. It is generally recommended to use multiple references in the introduction to support your claims and show that you understand the current state of knowledge on the topic.

I found the introduction to be somewhat lacking in clarity. The main objective of the paper is not immediately apparent, and the reader is left wondering what the paper is trying to achieve. I recommend that you revise the introduction by clearly stating the objectives and providing a concise overview of the research problem and key challenges.

Literature review

(Fuel subsidy restructure effectiveness) Paragraph 1, Lines 3 -5: It is better if you can provide the reference. Maybe the author can cite the 2010-2015 Malaysia Plan report.

(Governance and administrative capacity) Paragraph 3, Lines 3-5: Are you sure that fossil fuel is used for cooking? Is this situation referred to as the Malaysia situation?

Methods

Paragraph 1, Line 3: I think you need to have more references to justify your sample size, or you need to determine by yourself the number of sample sizes. You must also explain how you distribute the questionnaire to each state accordingly.

(Sampling and pre-testing) Paragraph 2, Lines 1-3: How many samples do you use for pre-testing validation? How can collecting data face-to-face, it can result in lower errors? Which references do you refer to that say that when error and survey bias are low, the data will be reliable and generalizable?
(Data collection) Paragraphs 1-2: Redundant paragraph. In paragraph 2, you say the study was conducted from September 2021 to November 2022. However, in paragraph 1 (under section Method), you say that the research was conducted from January 2022 to July 2022. So which one is true?
(Analysis) Paragraph 2: Please elaborate further on how you analyse it using multiple linear regression. The current paragraph is too short and lacks clarity.

Results

Paragraph 1, line 1: I noticed that you sometimes write numbers in numerals (e.g., 105) and sometimes in words (e.g., one hundred and five). I recommend that you be consistent in your use of numbers throughout the manuscript.

Paragraph 1, line 3: Redundant sentence.

Table 1 does not show full information about the demographics of the respondents. For example, there is no information about the number of respondents from each state (Selangor, Johor, Kuala Lumpur). I think the household size, gender and race also should be included in the respondents' demographic.
Table 3: No P-value for social protection and efficient targeting. If the p-value is too small, you can write it as <0.01.
Paragraph 4, Last line: What justification do you use to say that H1-H4 are supported? I think you should elaborate in more detail.

Discussion and recommendation

The discussion can be further improved by more clearly explaining the implications of the findings towards Malaysia.

Conclusion

The conclusion could be made clearer by summarizing the main findings of the study and reiterating the implications of the findings.

In summary, this paper has the potential to make a valuable contribution to the field but requires significant revisions to improve clarity, coherence, and depth. Addressing the reviewer's comments and suggestions will enhance the quality and impact of the paper.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

No
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Time series and statistical modelling

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

[1] Aleksandrova M, Costella C: Reaching the poorest and most vulnerable: addressing loss and damage through social protection. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2021; 50: 121–128. Publisher Full Text

[2] Clarke K: Estimating the Impact of Price Reforms on Kerosene Subsidy Expenditure in India. 2016. Reference Source

[3] Couharde C, Mouhoud S: Fossil fuel subsidy, income inequality, and poverty: Evidence from developing countries. J. Econ. Surv. 2020; 34: 981–1006. Publisher Full Text

[4] Dennis A: Social protection implications of fossil fuel subsidy restructure in developing countries. Energy Policy. 2016; 96: 597–606. Publisher Full Text

[5] Feltenstein A: Subsidy restructure and implications for social protection: An analysis of IMF advice on food and fuel subsidy. IEO Background Paper No. BP/17-01/02 (Washington: International Monetary Fund). 2017.

[6] Fuje H: Fossil fuel subsidy reforms, spatial market integration, and welfare: evidence from a natural experiment in Ethiopia. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2019; 101: 270–290. Publisher Full Text

[7] Hunt C, Weber O, Dordi T: A comparative analysis of the anti-Apartheid and fossil fuel divestment campaign. J. Sustain. Finance Invest. 2017; 7: 64–81. Publisher Full Text

[8] Ilyas R, Hussain K, Ullah MZ, et al.: Distributional impact of phasing out residential electricity subsidy on household welfare. Energy Policy. 2022; 163: 112825. Publisher Full Text

[9] Institute for Sustainable Development [IISD]: Lessons Learned: Malaysia’s 2013 Fuel Subsidy Reform. 2014. Reference Source

[10] Khalid SA, Salman V: Welfare impact of electricity subsidy restructure in Pakistan: a micro model study. Energy Policy. 2020; 137: 111097. Publisher Full Text

[11] Kojima M: Fossil fuel subsidy and pricing policies: recent developing country experience. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper. 2016; 7531. Publisher Full Text

[12] Kyle J: Local corruption and popular support for fuel subsidy restructure in Indonesia. Comp. Pol. Stud. 2018; 51: 1472–1503. Publisher Full Text

[13] Li Y, Shi X, Su B: Economic, social and environmental impacts of fuel subsidy: A revisit of Malaysia. Energy Policy. 2017; 110: 51–61. Publisher Full Text

[14] Lin B, Xu M: Good subsidies or bad subsidies? Evidence from low-carbon transition in China’s metallurgical industry. Energy Econ. 2019; 83: 52–60. Publisher Full Text

[15] Loo SY, Mukaramah L: Fuel subsidy abolition and performance of the sectors in Malaysia: A computable general equilibrium approach. Malays. J. Econ. Stud. 2019; 56(2): 303–326. Publisher Full Text

[16] McCulloch N, Moerenhout T, Yang J: Fuel subsidy reform and the social contract in Nigeria: A micro-economic analysis. Energy Policy. 2021; 156: 112336. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[17] Ministry of Finance: Largest ever Subsidy of RM77.3 bln for 2022 to Reduce Cost of Living for the People. 2022. Reference Source

[18] Mundaca G: Energy subsidy, public investment and endogenous growth. Energy Policy. 2017; 110: 693–709. Publisher Full Text

[19] Rentschler J, Bazilian M: Policy monitor—principles for designing effective fossil fuel subsidy restructure. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy. 2020; 11: 138–155. Publisher Full Text

[20] Schaffitzel F, Jakob M, Soria R, et al.: Can government transfers make energy subsidy restructure socially acceptable? A case study on Ecuador. Energy Policy. 2020; 137: 111120. Publisher Full Text

[21] World Food Programme: Selection of Households or Individuals within Locations. 2023. Reference Source

[22] Umar HM, Umar MS: An assessment of the direct welfare impact of fuel subsidy restructure in Nigeria. Am. J. Econ. 2013; 3: 23–26.

[23] Yuen YY: Fuel Subsidy Restructure Effectiveness. [Dataset]. Figshare. 2023a. Publisher Full Text

[24] Yuen YY: FuelSubsidyRestuctureQuestionnaire. [Dataset]. Figshare. 2023b. Publisher Full Text

A cross-sectional survey measuring effectiveness of fuel subsidy restructure in Malaysia

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Literature review

Fuel subsidy restructure effectiveness

Social protection

Governance and administrative capacity

Publicity campaigns

Efficient targeting

Knowledge gaps

Methods

Ethics statement

Study design

Figure 1. Research framework.

Sampling and pre-testing

Data collection

Analysis

Results

Table 1. Descriptive statistics.

Table 2. B40 Households’ and M40 Households’ perceptions on fuel subsidy restructure.

Table 3. Key factors that contribute to the effectiveness of fuel subsidy restructure in Malaysia post COVID-19 pandemic.

Discussion and recommendation

Unique contributions of this research

Data availability

Underlying data

Extended data

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated