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 Utility Models & Prospect Theory, as of September 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 Utility Models & Prospect Theory, these are 278 authors affiliated with 704 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 Utility Models & Prospect 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-UPT (Utility Models & Prospect Theory).
RankScoreInstitution
11.67National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), Cambridge
21.83Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA), Basel/Zürich
33.15Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakutät, Universität Zürich, Zürich
43.21Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), Bonn
(5)4.61Institut für Empirische Wirtschaftsforschung, Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakutät, Universität Zürich, Zürich
56.56Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR), London
67.98Department of Economics, Harvard University, Cambridge
78.66Department of Economics, Oxford University, Oxford
810.57CESifo, München
911.28Department of Economics, Princeton University, Princeton
1011.36Department of Economics, Boston University, Boston
1113.09Economics Department, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge
1213.86London School of Economics (LSE), University of London, London
1316.52School of Economics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh
1416.66Department of Economics, University of Warwick, Coventry
1519.2Faculteit der Economische Wetenschappen en Bedrijfskunde, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
(16)19.39Economics Group, Nuffield College, Department of Economics, Oxford University, Oxford
(16)22.26Afdeling Ruimtelijke Economie, Faculteit der Economische Wetenschappen en Bedrijfskunde, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
1622.95Department of Economics, New York University, New York City
1723.51Eitan Berglas School of Economics, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv
1823.88Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge
1925.24Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), Toulouse
2025.48ECORE, Louvain/Bruxelles
2125.87Paris-Jourdan Sciences Économiques (PSE), École Normale Supérieure, Paris
2225.91Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), Dublin
(23)27.04School of Economics and Finance, Faculty of Business, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane
2227.04Faculty of Business, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane
(24)27.89Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE), ECORE, Louvain-la-Neuve
2428.29Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM), Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
2528.79School of Economics, University of Nottingham, Nottingham
(26)28.82Centre for Economic Performance (CEP), London School of Economics (LSE), University of London, London
2629.26Kellogg Graduate School of Management, Northwestern University, Evanston
2731.42Economics Department, Queen's University, Kingston
2833.26Collegio Carlo Alberto, Moncalieri
2933.65Théorie Économique, Modélisation, Application (THEMA), Université de Cergy-Pontoise, Cergy-Pontoise
3034.63School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich
(31)36.51Foerder Institute for Economic Research, Eitan Berglas School of Economics, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv
3136.65Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät, Humboldt-Universität, Berlin
3236.66Graduate School of Business, Columbia University, New York City
(33)37.28Institut d'Économie Industrielle (IDEI), Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), Toulouse
3337.47Centre de Recerca en Economia Internacional (CREI), Barcelona
3437.74International Monetary Fund (IMF), Washington
3537.95Department of Economics, Duke University, Durham

Top 5% authors in the field of Utility Models & Prospect 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
1.1Bruno S. Frey
2.2.56John Moore
3.3.85Robert Sugden
4.5.64David Schmeidler
5.6.33Sujoy Mukerji
6.6.37Chris D Orme
7.7.34Mark Huggett
8.8.26Uzi Segal
9.8.95Dan Usher
10.11.86Kevin Roberts
11.12.93Chris Starmer
12.13.07Massimo Marinacci
13.13.63Harry M. Markowitz

Credits:

We do our best, but we cannot exclude errors.