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 China, 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 China, these are 107 authors affiliated with 297 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 China

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-CNA (China).
RankScoreInstitution
11.48World Bank Group, Washington
22.33National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), Cambridge
32.88International Monetary Fund (IMF), Washington
(4)3.52Economics Research, World Bank Group, Washington
46.31Department of Economics, University of California-Berkeley, Berkeley
(5)7.9Center for International Development, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge
47.9Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge
67.94Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR), London
(7)8.14Macroeconomics and Growth Research, World Bank Group, Washington
79.45Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), Bonn
(8)9.99Aid Effectiveness Research, World Bank Group, Washington
812.51Department of Economics, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin
913.95William Davidson Institute, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
(10)14Policy Research Department, World Bank Group, Washington
(10)14.17Center for Business and Government, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge
1015.22Department of Economics, University of Toronto, Toronto
1117.91International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), Washington
1218.6European Centre for Advanced Research in Economics and Statistics (ECARES), Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles
1320.47Brookings Institution, Washington
1421.27Department of Economics, Oxford University, Oxford

Top 5% authors in the field of China

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
1.2.04David Theodore Coe
2.2.2David Dollar
3.4.06Adam Wagstaff
4.4.34Gérard Roland
5.4.6Lixin Colin Xu

Credits:

We do our best, but we cannot exclude errors.