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 Collective Decision-Making, as of February 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 Collective Decision-Making, these are 366 authors affiliated with 741 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 Collective Decision-Making

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-CDM (Collective Decision-Making).
RankScoreInstitution
11National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), Cambridge
22.34Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR), London
32.65Department of Economics, Harvard University, Cambridge
44.73Department of Economics, Princeton University, Princeton
55.78Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), Bonn
66.02London School of Economics (LSE), University of London, London
78.57Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research (IGIER), Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi, Milano
(8)8.6Economics Department, London School of Economics (LSE), University of London, London
810.01CESifo, München
910.71Economics Department, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge
1014.41Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge
1114.44Department of Economics, New York University, New York City
1214.65Department of Economics, University of California-San Diego (UCSD), La Jolla
1315.22Faculteit der Economische Wetenschappen en Bedrijfskunde, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
1415.46Department of Economics, School of Arts and Sciences, Columbia University, New York City
1515.7Economics Department, Brown University, Providence
1616.92Department of Economics, University of Chicago, Chicago
1717.7Faculteit Economie en Bedrijfskunde, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam
1817.84Paris-Jourdan Sciences Économiques (PSE), École Normale Supérieure, Paris
1917.98Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
2018.81Institute for International Economic Studies (IIES), Stockholms Universitet, Stockholm
2119.95Tinbergen Instituut, Amsterdam
2220.76Department of Economics, University of California-Berkeley, Berkeley
2321.6Department of Economics, University of Warwick, Coventry
2423.7Department of Economics, University of Toronto, Toronto
2524.22Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), London
(26)24.52International Economics Section, Department of Economics, Princeton University, Princeton
2625.93Tuck School of Business, Dartmouth College, Hanover
(27)26.24Suntory and Toyota International Centres for Economics and Related Disciplines (STICERD), London School of Economics (LSE), University of London, London
(27)27.48Finance Group, Faculteit Economie en Bedrijfskunde, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam
2728.34Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), Toulouse
2829.06School of Economics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh
(29)29.57Institut d'Économie Industrielle (IDEI), Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), Toulouse
2932.37Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
3032.95Department of Economics, Stanford University, Palo Alto
3133.02World Bank Group, Washington
3234.68Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University, New Haven
3338.52Department of Economics, Cornell University, Ithaca
3438.68Economics Department, Michigan State University, East Lansing
3542.05William Davidson Institute, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
3642.4European Centre for Advanced Research in Economics and Statistics (ECARES), Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles
3744.54Department of Economics, Oxford University, Oxford

Top 5% authors in the field of Collective Decision-Making

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
1.1.41Andrei Shleifer
2.2.17Alberto Alesina
3.4.25Guido Tabellini
4.5.07Elhanan Helpman
5.6.24Torsten Persson
6.6.96Sherwin Rosen †
7.8.17Daron Acemoglu
8.8.63Gene Grossman
9.9.2Xavier Sala-i-Martin
10.9.49Rafael La Porta
11.9.68Timothy J. Besley
12.12.37Steven Shavell
13.12.83Steven J. Brams
14.13.38Joel Sobel
15.14.66John Moore
16.14.81Herschel I. Grossman †
17.16.66Matthew O. Jackson
18.17.39Andrew Foster

Credits:

We do our best, but we cannot exclude errors.