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 Game Theory, 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 Game Theory, these are 448 authors affiliated with 598 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 Game Theory

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-GTH (Game Theory).
RankScoreInstitution
11.93Department of Economics, Stanford University, Palo Alto
22.95National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), Cambridge
33.19Department of Economics, University of California-San Diego (UCSD), La Jolla
44.34Department of Economics, Harvard University, Cambridge
55.06Department of Economics, Princeton University, Princeton
67.07Department of Economics, University of Chicago, Chicago
79.22Faculteit der Economische Wetenschappen en Bedrijfskunde, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
810.09Center for the Study of Rationality, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem
910.4Department of Economics, University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA), Los Angeles
1012.01Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR), London
1113.17Department of Economics, New York University, New York City
1213.59Hoover Institution on War Revolution & Peace, Stanford University, Palo Alto
1313.61Kellogg Graduate School of Management, Northwestern University, Evanston
1414.01Paris-Jourdan Sciences Économiques (PSE), École Normale Supérieure, Paris
1514.35Forschungsstelle Nachhaltige Umweltentwicklung (ZMK), Universität Hamburg, Hamburg
1614.71Department of Economics, University College London, University of London, London
1715Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), Toulouse
1815.25Division of Social Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
1916.36Department of Economics, Oxford University, Oxford
2016.91Department of Economics, School of Arts and Sciences, Columbia University, New York City
(21)17.29Institut d'Économie Industrielle (IDEI), Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), Toulouse
(21)18.52Afdeling Ruimtelijke Economie, Faculteit der Economische Wetenschappen en Bedrijfskunde, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
2119.82Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), Bonn
2222.82Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM), Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
2222.82Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), Dublin
2423.15Department of Economics, Northwestern University, Evanston
2523.46Wirtschaftswissenschaftlicher Fachbereich, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität, Bonn
(26)24Social Science Experimental Laboratory, Division of Social Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
2624.87Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE), Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve
(27)25.31Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science (CMS-EMS), Kellogg Graduate School of Management, Northwestern University, Evanston
2725.36Faculteit der Economische Wetenschappen en Bedrijfskunde, Universiteit Maastricht, Maastricht
(28)27.64Laboratory for Experimental Economics and Political Science, Division of Social Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
(28)28.99Finance & Economics Department, Graduate School of Business, Columbia University, New York City
2728.99Graduate School of Business, Columbia University, New York City
(29)29.75Vakgroep Algemene Economie, Faculteit der Economische Wetenschappen en Bedrijfskunde, Universiteit Maastricht, Maastricht
2929.79Department of Economics, Boston University, Boston

Top 5% authors in the field of Game Theory

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
1.1.6Paul Milgrom
2.2.1Drew Fudenberg
3.3.98Vincent P. Crawford
4.4.45Stephen Morris
5.4.91David Levine
6.6.16Colin Camerer
7.6.79Ehud Kalai
8.7.18Matthew O. Jackson
9.8.58Joel Sobel
10.11.01Sergiu Hart
11.11.95Mamoru Kaneko
12.12.74Philippe Jehiel
13.13.93Roger B. Myerson
14.14.34George J. Mailath
15.14.7Charles A. Holt
16.15.72Benny Moldovanu
17.17.91Lin Zhou
18.18.23Bezalel Peleg
19.18.35Jacques Crémer
20.19.5Herve Moulin
21.19.8Martin Shubik
22.20.9James Andreoni

Credits:

We do our best, but we cannot exclude errors.