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 Agricultural Economics, as of December 2007

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 Agricultural Economics, these are 459 authors affiliated with 640 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 Agricultural Economics

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-AGR (Agricultural Economics).
RankScoreInstitution
11.3National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), Cambridge
22.98Department of Economics, Iowa State University, Ames
34.23Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge
44.35Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), Bonn
55.14Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR), London
67.11World Bank Group, Washington
77.24Faculteit der Economische Wetenschappen en Bedrijfskunde, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
87.68Department of Economics, Princeton University, Princeton
99.17Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California-Berkeley, Berkeley
109.69Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD), Iowa State University, Ames
(11)9.99Economics Research, World Bank Group, Washington
1112.87Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), Toulouse
1213.45International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), Washington
1314.16Economics Department, Yale University, New Haven
1417.74Department of Economics, Harvard University, Cambridge
(15)18.13Department of Economics, College of Business, Arizona State University, Tempe
1418.13College of Business, Arizona State University, Tempe
1619.87Resources for the Future (RFF), Washington
1719.97Department of Economics, Boston University, Boston
1820.13Paris-Jourdan Sciences Économiques (PSE), École Normale Supérieure, Paris
(19)22.57Institut d'Économie Industrielle (IDEI), Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), Toulouse
1923.34Stern School of Business, New York University, New York City
(19)23.34Economics Department, Stern School of Business, New York University, New York City
2026.09Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing
2126.14Department of Economics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem
2226.19Department of Economics, University of California-San Diego (UCSD), La Jolla
(23)28.21Research Program in Development Studies, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, Princeton
2228.21Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, Princeton
2428.87Department of Economics, University of Toronto, Toronto
2530.08Economics Department, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge
2630.26Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, West Lafayette
2733.94Centre for International Economic Studies, University of Adelaide, Adelaide
2834Harvard Business School, Harvard University, Cambridge
(28)34Finance Unit, Harvard Business School, Harvard University, Cambridge
2934.53Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge
3035.83College of Business, University of Wyoming, Laramie
(30)35.83Department of Economics and Finance, College of Business, University of Wyoming, Laramie
3135.89Department of Economics, Oxford University, Oxford
3236.04London School of Economics (LSE), University of London, London

Top 5% authors in the field of Agricultural Economics

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
1.2.52Thomas F. Cooley
2.2.55Peter Nijkamp
3.5.35Brian R. Copeland
4.5.57Guy Laroque
5.6.37Christopher R. Udry
6.7.56Gordon C. Rausser
7.7.88Jean-Marie Baland
8.9.73Robert Owen Mendelsohn
9.10.21Kym Anderson
10.11.27Dwayne Benjamin
11.12.37John Christopher Beghin
12.13.43Bernard J.-M. Caillaud
13.14.23Jean-Paul Chavas
14.14.4Joseph A. Herriges Sr.
15.15.44Will J Martin
16.16.24J. Vernon Henderson
17.17.03David Roland-Holst
18.17.43Nicholas William Minot
19.17.9Edward B. Barbier
20.18.65Dermot James Hayes
21.20.14John C. Quiggin
22.20.71David Zilberman

Credits:

We do our best, but we cannot exclude errors.