IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

A ranking method based on handicaps


  • Demange, Gabrielle

    () (Paris School of Economics-EHESS)


Ranking methods are fundamental tools in many areas. Popular methods aggregate the statements of `experts' in different ways. As such, there are various reasonable ranking methods, each one of them more or less adapted to the environment under consideration.This paper introduces a new method, called the handicap-based method, and characterizes it through appealing properties. This method assigns not only scores to the items but also weights to the experts. Scores and weights form an equilibrium for a relationship based on the notion of handicaps. The method is, in a sense made precise in the paper, the counterpart to the counting method in environments that require intensity-invariance. Intensity-invariance is a desirable property when the intensity of the experts' statements has to be controlled. Otherwise, both the counting and handicap-based methods satisfy a property called homogeneity, which is a desirable property when cardinal statements matter, as is the case in many applications.

Suggested Citation

  • Demange, Gabrielle, 2014. "A ranking method based on handicaps," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 9(3), September.
  • Handle: RePEc:the:publsh:1217

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Gabrielle Demange, 2012. "On the influence of a ranking system," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 39(2), pages 431-455, July.
    2. Giora Slutzki & Oscar Volij, 2006. "Scoring of web pages and tournaments—axiomatizations," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 26(1), pages 75-92, January.
    3. M. L. Balinski & G. Demange, 1989. "An Axiomatic Approach to Proportionality Between Matrices," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 14(4), pages 700-719, November.
    4. de Clippel, Geoffroy & Moulin, Herve & Tideman, Nicolaus, 2008. "Impartial division of a dollar," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 139(1), pages 176-191, March.
    5. Liebowitz, S J & Palmer, J P, 1984. "Assessing the Relative Impacts of Economic Journals," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 22(1), pages 77-88, March.
    6. Woeginger, Gerhard J., 2008. "An axiomatic characterization of the Hirsch-index," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 224-232, September.
    7. AMIR, Rabah, 2002. "Impact-adjusted citations as a measure of journal quality," CORE Discussion Papers 2002074, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    8. van den Brink, René & Gilles, Robert P., 2009. "The outflow ranking method for weighted directed graphs," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 193(2), pages 484-491, March.
    9. Leo Katz, 1953. "A new status index derived from sociometric analysis," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 18(1), pages 39-43, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Yves SPRUMONT, 2016. "Ranking by Rating," Cahiers de recherche 03-2016, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en économie quantitative, CIREQ.
    2. René Van den Brink & Agnieszka Rusinowska, 2017. "The degree measure as utility function over positions in networks," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-01592181, HAL.
    3. Nicolas CARAYOL & Agenor LAHATTE, 2014. "Dominance relations and ranking when quantity and quality both matter: Applications to US universities and econ. departments worldwide," Cahiers du GREThA 2014-14, Groupe de Recherche en Economie Théorique et Appliquée.
    4. Demange, Gabrielle, 2017. "Mutual rankings," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 35-42.
    5. Rene (J.R.) van den Brink & Agnieszka Rusinowska, 2017. "The Degree Measure as Utility Function over Positions in Networks," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 17-065/II, Tinbergen Institute.
    6. Dequiedt, Vianney & Zenou, Yves, 2017. "Local and consistent centrality measures in parameterized networks," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 28-36.
    7. Flores-Szwagrzak, Karol & Treibich, Rafael, 2015. "Co-authorship and the Measurement of Individual Productivity," Discussion Papers of Business and Economics 17/2015, University of Southern Denmark, Department of Business and Economics.
    8. René van den Brink & Agnieszka Rusinowska, 2017. "The degree measure as utility function over positions in networks," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 17035, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    9. repec:hal:wpaper:halshs-01353825 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Sprumont, Yves, 2018. "Ranking by rating," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 13(1), January.
    11. Lutz Bornmann & Alexander Butz & Klaus Wohlrabe, 2018. "What are the top five journals in economics? A new meta-ranking," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(6), pages 659-675, February.
    12. Palacios-Huerta, Ignacio & Volij, Oscar, 2014. "Axiomatic measures of intellectual influence," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 85-90.
    13. Bouyssou, Denis & Marchant, Thierry, 2016. "Ranking authors using fractional counting of citations: An axiomatic approach," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 183-199.

    More about this item


    Ranking; scores; invariant method; peers' method; handicap; scaling matrix;

    JEL classification:

    • D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations
    • D89 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Other


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:the:publsh:1217. 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: (Martin J. Osborne). General contact details of provider: .

    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 CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.