IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

On the robustness of alternative rankings methodologies: Australian and New Zealand economics departments, 1988 to 2002

  • Joseph Macri
  • Michael McAleer
  • Dipendra Sinha

Just as friendly arguments based on an ignorance of facts eventually led to the creation of the definitive Guinness Book of World Records, any argument about university rankings has seemingly been a problem without a solution. To state the obvious, alternative rankings methodologies can and do lead to different rankings. This article evaluates the robustness of rankings of Australian and New Zealand economics teaching departments for 1988 to 2002 and 1996 to 2002 using alternative rankings methodologies, and compares the results with the rankings obtained by Macri and Sinha (2006). In the overall mean rankings for both 1988 to 2006 and 1996 to 2002, the University of Melbourne is ranked first, followed by UWA and ANU.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Taylor & Francis Journals in its journal Applied Economics.

Volume (Year): 42 (2010)
Issue (Month): 10 ()
Pages: 1257-1268

in new window

Handle: RePEc:taf:applec:v:42:y:2010:i:10:p:1257-1268
Contact details of provider: Web page:

Order Information: Web:

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:applec:v:42:y:2010:i:10:p:1257-1268. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Michael McNulty)

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.