RePEc Click here to visit UConn Economics IDEAS

This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Top 5% Institutions and Economists in the Field of Game Theory, as of April 2008

These rankings take only into account institutions registered in EDIRC and authors registered with the RePEc Author Service and the institutions they claimed to be affiliated with. For Game Theory, these are 477 authors affiliated with 621 institutions.
For the worldwide rankings, see here: top 5% authors or top 5% economics institutions.
More rankings.
All authors classified in this field.
The rankings below are aggregate rankings from 31 different ranking methods, excluding worst and best method. See links above for details.
The data presented here is experimental. It is based on a limited sample of the research output in Economics and Finance. Only material catalogued in RePEc is considered. For any citation based criterion, only works that could be parsed by the CitEc project are considered. For any ranking of people, only those registered with the RePEc Author Service can be taken into account. And for rankings of institutions, only those listed in EDIRC and claimed as affiliation by the respective, registered authors can be measured. Thus, this list is by no means based on a complete sample. You can help making this more comprehensive by encouraging more publications to be listed (instructions) and more authors to register (form). For more details on the various rankings that are available as well for documentation, follow this link.

Top 5% institutions in the field of Game Theory

Please note that rankings can depend on the number of registered authors in the respective institutions. Subentities of ranked institutions do not increment the rank count and have their rank listed in parentheses. Register at the RePEc Author Service.

The scores of institutions in each field are determined by a weighted sum of all authors affiliated with the respective institutions. The weights are determined, for each author, by the proportion of all working papers announced in NEP that have also been announced in NEP-GTH (Game Theory).
RankScoreInstitution
11.84Department of Economics, Stanford University, Palo Alto
23.16Department of Economics, University of California-San Diego (UCSD), La Jolla
33.22National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), Cambridge
44.25Department of Economics, Princeton University, Princeton
54.43Department of Economics, Harvard University, Cambridge
67.26Department of Economics, University of Chicago, Chicago
79.34Faculteit der Economische Wetenschappen en Bedrijfskunde, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
89.61Center for the Study of Rationality, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem
911.08Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR), London
1012.76Hoover Institution on War Revolution & Peace, Stanford University, Palo Alto
1113.22Department of Economics, University College London, University of London, London
1213.27Department of Economics, New York University, New York City
1313.79Department of Economics, University of Warwick, Coventry
1413.94Kellogg Graduate School of Management, Northwestern University, Evanston
1514.19Division of Social Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
(16)14.25Afdeling Ruimtelijke Economie, Faculteit der Economische Wetenschappen en Bedrijfskunde, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
1614.41Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), Toulouse
1715.08Paris-Jourdan Sciences Économiques (PSE), École Normale Supérieure, Paris
1815.57Department of Economics, Washington University, St. Louis
(19)16.57Institut d'Économie Industrielle (IDEI), Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), Toulouse
1917.47Department of Economics, Oxford University, Oxford
2017.81Department of Economics, School of Arts and Sciences, Columbia University, New York City
2118.69Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), Dublin
2219.09Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), Bonn
2321.32Faculteit der Economische Wetenschappen en Bedrijfskunde, Universiteit Maastricht, Maastricht
(24)24.46Social Science Experimental Laboratory, Division of Social Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
2424.64Wirtschaftswissenschaftlicher Fachbereich, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität, Bonn
2524.67Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE), Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve
2624.69Department of Economics, Northwestern University, Evanston
2725.54Department of Economics, University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA), Los Angeles
(28)25.95Vakgroep Algemene Economie, Faculteit der Economische Wetenschappen en Bedrijfskunde, Universiteit Maastricht, Maastricht
(28)26.65Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science (CMS-EMS), Kellogg Graduate School of Management, Northwestern University, Evanston
(28)28.36Laboratory for Experimental Economics and Political Science, Division of Social Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
2830.13School of Economics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh
2930.21Department of Economics, Boston University, Boston
3031.54Economics Department, Brown University, Providence
3132.3Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia

Top 5% authors in the field of Game Theory

This ranking is based on registered authors only, and only those who are classified within this field. Authors can register at the RePEc Author Service.
RankScoreAuthor
1.1.6Paul Milgrom
2.2.09Drew Fudenberg
3.3.93Vincent P. Crawford
4.4.46Stephen Morris
5.5.38David Knudsen Levine
6.6.48Colin Camerer
7.6.79Matthew O. Jackson
8.7Ehud Kalai
9.8.44Joel Sobel
10.9.5Sergiu Hart
11.12.68Philippe Jehiel
12.12.91Mamoru Kaneko
13.14.04Roger B. Myerson
14.14.23George J. Mailath
15.14.71Charles A. Holt
16.16.23Benny Moldovanu
17.18.66Lin Zhou
18.19Jacques Crémer
19.19.12Bezalel Peleg
20.19.3Ted Bergstrom
21.20.82Herve Moulin
22.21.52Martin Shubik
23.21.93James Andreoni

Credits:

We do our best, but we cannot exclude errors.