IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/auc/wpaper/185.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Quality Versus Quantity: Rankings of Economics Departments in New Zealand

Author

Listed:
  • King, Ian

Abstract

I compare the research records of the 7 major economics departments in New Zealand, from 1990 onwards. The information, taken from the Econlit database, covers more than 500 economics journals, as of November 2000. Quality weights for the journals were taken from the study by Laband and Piette (1994). Four different departmental ranking measures were computed. The resulting ranking of departments is common to all the measures used. Auckland comes in first, followed by Victoria University of Wellington, Canterbury, Otago, Lincoln, Waikato, and Massey.

Suggested Citation

  • King, Ian, 2000. "Quality Versus Quantity: Rankings of Economics Departments in New Zealand," Working Papers 185, Department of Economics, The University of Auckland.
    • Handle: RePEc:auc:wpaper:185
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/2292/185
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Derek Yu & Atoko Kasongo & Mariana Moses, 2017. "Examining the Performance of the South African Economics Departments, 2005-2014," South African Journal of Economics, Economic Society of South Africa, vol. 85(1), pages 138-158, March.
    2. Anna Kireenko, 2021. "Improving tax journal’s international visibility: Findings from literature review and faculty survey," Journal of Tax Reform, Graduate School of Economics and Management, Ural Federal University, vol. 7(3), pages 267-283.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Economics;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:auc:wpaper:185. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Library Digital Development (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deaucnz.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.