A guide to graduate study in economics: ranking economics departments by fields of expertise.

Grijalva, Therese C. ; Nowell, Clifford

1. Introduction

Each year, thousands of undergraduates apply for admission to graduate schools in economics intending to obtain a Ph.D. Many of these students have little idea on how to choose a graduate program, and many go to an undergraduate adviser looking for advice. Prospective graduate students and their advisers have little published research to help them in the process of choosing what schools best match the undergraduate's skills and interests.

This study highlights many of the characteristics of departments that offer doctoral degrees in economics and provides information on both overall productivity and productivity by subject field. This research is significant for those looking to obtain a Ph.D. in economics because the choice of where to attend graduate school has been shown to be important in both academic and nonacademic job markets. Research into the careers of Ph.D. economists (Barbezat 1992; McMillen and Singell 1994; Stock and Alston 2000; Siegfried and Stock 2004) consistently indicates that graduates from top-rated schools fare better in academic and nonacademic job markets than their peers from lower-ranked programs.

Based on the finding that the quality of the school influences outcomes in the job market, the best advice for those applying to graduate school in economics may simply be to apply to the best schools to which you will likely be admitted. Yet this advice is of little value for those who are unlikely to be admitted into a top program yet have a strong interest in one of the many subject fields of economics and a strong desire to pursue a particular field. This group of students is left getting advice from an undergraduate adviser who cannot be expected to know the strengths of economics departments across the country or to search the Web pages of all the programs that offer a Ph.D. looking for clues as to what school is the best match.

In this article, we provide information to undergraduate students and their advisers on the research strengths of 129 economics departments that offer Ph.D. degrees in the United States and to identify schools that are ranked highly in the many different subject fields of economics. This article should also provide guidance to departments hiring new Ph.D. candidates within a specific field and to job candidates looking for information on potential academic employers.

This article differs from the many papers ranking the quality of economics departments by identifying the relative strength of all Ph.D. programs and by specifically providing information on all the major subject fields in economics. Although Tschirhart (1989) ranks departments in fields of expertise, only a limited set of fields is identified, and departments are ranked using data that are now over 20 years old. U.S. News and Worm Report (1) also provides a ranking of economics departments by field. Their ranking is based on survey responses of department chairs who were asked to rank all departments on a five-point scale. Department rankings by field can also be found on the EconPhd.net website (http://www.econphd.net). This site ranks departments by field, using publications in 63 highly ranked economics journals during the 1993-2003 period. The data we used as the basis for this article are more comprehensive and cover a larger time frame. We used all journals in which economists at the Ph.D.-granting institutions in the United States had published during a 20-year period. Our data set consists of publications in 254 journals over the 20-year period 1985-2004. This analysis provides by far the most detailed, complete ranking of departments by field in the literature.

In addition to simply identifying the top 20 schools in each field, other information, not found elsewhere, is provided on the relative importance of the field at the school and how the scholarly output is distributed across the department's faculty. To measure the concentration of faculty in a field, we calculate a Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI). The HHI is particularly important for an undergraduate to consider. Planning to obtain a Ph.D. from a school in hopes of studying with a single person is a risky undertaking not only because the faculty member may move but also because any single faculty member can mentor only a limited number of students.

We recognize that ranking departments is fraught with danger. Thursby (2000) has pointed out that using single measures of department productivity suggests differences between many departments that are meaningless, a finding we reiterate when solely aggregate measures of performance are used. However, by providing detailed information on departments by field and by identifying the publication patterns of the faculty within the field, we are able to highlight some differences that aggregate measures gloss over.

2. Methods

Similar to Tschirhart (1989), the data-gathering stage consists of four basic steps: (i) identifying all Ph.D.-granting institutions in economics as of the 2004 spring semester, (2) (ii) identifying all tenure-track or tenured faculty as of the 2004 spring semester, (iii) acquiring a list of faculty publications, and (iv) determining the quality of each publication.

To identify the universities offering doctoral degrees in economics, we used the website maintained by the University of Albany. (3) This site contained a list of all economics departments with Ph.D. programs at American and Canadian universities and was verified with Peterson's Guide to Graduate Schools. (4) Based on this, we identified 129 programs located in the United States that offered doctoral degrees in economics as of the spring of 2004.

The second step, identifying all tenure-track or tenured faculty for each university, was accomplished by accessing economics department Web sites. A slight shortcoming of this approach is that faculty lists are highly dependent on whether a department maintains and updates their faculty lists. Removing faculty members without any publications resulted in over 2600 faculty names. In the few cases where faculty appeared on multiple department websites, we included the faculty member in the department where he or she had a permanent and current affiliation. We recognize that there are some faculty who are members of a department other than economics (e.g., the Department of Managerial Economics and Decision Sciences at Northwestern University) yet contribute to the education of graduate students and are productive in the field of economics. Determining who these faculty are and the extent to which they are involved in the economics department made it impractical to include them in the analysis.

The third step focused on acquiring journal publications for each faculty member listed in the Journal of Economic Literature database Econlit. The database was queried for the publications of tenure-track faculty identified by the 129 departments. Faculty were dropped from the analysis if Econlit indicated that they had no published articles. This study focused on articles published between 1985 and 2004. Over this time period, Econlit cataloged over 38,000 publications of faculty who were employed in Ph.D. economics programs as of the spring of 2004. (5) Further, Econlit provided four essential pieces of information that would be needed for analysis: (i) article source, (ii) page numbers, (iii) number of authors, and (iv) Journal of Economic Literature subject codes. The article source would be needed in order to assess the quality of the article. The credit each author received for a publication was weighted by the number of authors and page length. The greater the number of coauthors, the less credit assigned to each coauthor, and the greater the length of the article, the greater the credit assigned to each coauthor. (6) The subject codes would be needed to sort articles by a field of expertise.

The final step was assigning a quality index, [Q.sub.j], to each journal. We used both the impact factors published in the 2004 Social Science Citation Index (SSCI scores) and rankings based on "citations per character in 1990" for articles published between 1985 and 1989 (JEL scores) proposed by Laband and Piette (1994). (7) Many publications contained at least one or both an SSCI and a JEL score. There were 107 journals containing both an SSCI and a JEL score. There were an additional 131 with only an SSCI score and an additional 16 with only a JEL score. Thus, the total number of journals indexed in the SSCI that we used in our analysis was 238, and the total number of journals indexed in the JEL that we used in our analysis was 123. Publications that had neither an SSCI nor a JEL score were dropped from the analysis. It should be noted that although the SSCI indexes 172 journals in the economics discipline, we use all publications identified by Econlit and indexed in the SSCI, even if outside the economics discipline, in calculating productivity.

Following Tschirhart (1989), articles were adjusted by number of authors and page length. The first step consisted of dividing the number of pages of article i, [pages.sub.i], by the number of authors (n), thus ensuring that each author received 1/n credit times the number of pages. The second step consisted of taking the value from the first step ([pages.sub.i] divided by n) and dividing it by the average length of all articles from the same journal j ([[bar.p].sub.j]). The weighting that each coauthor of article i in publication j, [W.sub.ij], receives is given by

[W.sub.ij] = [pages.sub.i]/[n.sub.i]/[[bar.p].sub.j]

The quality, [Q.sub.j], of each article was then multiplied by [W.sub.ij], yielding a productivity value, [P.sub.ij], indicating the weighted quality assigned to each article assigned to the author. These weighted productivity values were summed by individual and then by school. The results presented in this study are based primarily on the SSCI scores because of the broader coverage of the SSCI and because the SSCI includes many of the newer journals that began publication after 1985.

In preparing to rank schools by subject fields, the JEL classification system was used. (8) The JEL classification system consists of 18 different subject fields. We eliminated one subject field, M (business administration and business economics, marketing, and accounting). The remaining 17 subject fields are listed in Table 1. The subject field with the greatest number of faculty publications was D, microeconomics, and the field with the least number of faculty publications was JEL code B, methodology and history of economic thought.

3. Results

After gathering and cleaning the data and making the previously mentioned calculations, rankings are computed. The results are presented in Tables 2 and 3.

The second column of Table 2 provides the overall productivity rank of all 129 departments. This ranking was computed by summing [P.sub.ij] for each university, with the top university having the greatest overall productivity sum. Although it is similar to rankings found in Graves, Marchand, and Thompson (1982) and Dusansky and Vernon (1998), some differences are apparent. These differences can be attributed to the difference in time periods analyzed, the inclusion of all articles listed in Econlit rather than a subset, and the use of the SSCI for the quality index.

The third column in Table 2, "Z-Score," indicates the number of standard deviations the school's productivity rank is above or below the mean productivity rank. Only 44 of the 129 schools have a positive Z-score, indicating that the distribution of overall productivity is skewed to the right. A noticeable feature of this skewness is that distinction between schools diminishes as the rank declines. For example, the top-ranked school, Harvard, has a Z-score of 5.08, and the fifth-ranked school, Yale, has a Z-score of 2.18, a substantial difference. However, as we move lower in the rankings, the 70th-ranked school, the University of Massachusetts, has a Z-score of -0.43, and the 80th-ranked school, the University of Delaware, has a Z-score of -0.50, a very small difference. The ordinal rankings presented in much of the literature that ranks economics departments miss the fact that below a relatively small group of top programs, the differences in aggregate productivity become fairly small.

The fourth column of Table 2, "Per Faculty Rank," shows how each school ranks when their total productivity sum is divided by the number of publishing faculty within the department; it represents the average productivity of publishing faculty in a department and may be the best indicator of the quality of the faculty for potential graduate students. For example, the California Institute of Technology has an overall rank of 38 and an average rank of 7, suggesting that the lower overall rank of the department is greatly influenced by the smaller size of the department and not due to the productivity of each publishing faculty member. A student attending this institution would likely obtain an education from "top 10" faculty even though the relatively small department size dampens the overall productivity ranking. The fifth column of Table 2 indicates the overall productivity ranking of departments based on the journal rankings of Laband and Piette (1994) that appeared in the Journal of Economic Literature. Notice that rankings using the SSCI or those calculated by Laband and Piette (1994) identify the same top 10 schools, and there is only one difference in the top 20 schools.

The sixth column of Table 2, "Top Field," indicates each department's best subject field. Top field was determined by summing each department's productivity for each JEL category, using the first JEL code identified by the author as a guide and then choosing the subject field with the highest sum. The seventh column of Table 2 shows the HHI for each school. The HHI is typically used to measure the degree of market concentration for a particular industry. In this study, the HHI provides information on how concentrated the research is among the number of faculty publishing in the department. The HHI is found by squaring the faculty member's share of the department's total productivity and then summing the results:

HHI = [n.summation over (i=1)] [s.sup.2.sub.i]

where s represents the productivity share of the ith faculty member. Values for the index can range from 0 to 1, depending on the distribution of publication patterns across the faculty at the school. A value of 1.0 indicates that all the publications result from a single individual, and a value of 0 implies that the publications are spread equally among the faculty in the area. (9)

The eighth column of Table 2, "Field Strength Index," demonstrates how well each department does in its top field relative to the department that is the number one rank in that particular field. For example, Harvard's top field is financial economics, and it is the top-ranked department in financial economics; hence, Harvard has a field strength index of 1.0. Princeton University's top field is microeconomics (JEL code D), although its field strength index in microeconomics is 0.88, indicating that it produces 88% of the research of the top-ranked school in the microeconomics category. (10) It is important to note that some universities may not offer a field in their top field (see footnotes for Table 2). Finally, the last column of Table 2, "Average Ph.D. Graduates (2002-2007)," provides information on the size of each program, and is included to provide additional information to potential applicants. (11) A significant portion of graduate education is obtained from one's classmates. As such, this figure provides information regarding the activity level of the graduate education within a department. A department may have many productive scholars but may not be as actively engaged in its graduate education.

Table 3 identifies the field rankings for each of the 129 departments using the first JEL code identified by the author. All articles were assigned to a field on the basis of the assumption that the first JEL code listed represents the primary subject field of the article. Once an article was categorized, the productivity value for each article, [P.sub.ij], was summed by subject and university, yielding a total productivity score within a particular field for a particular department. While this information is useful to potential graduate students and others, it should be noted that not all fields are offered at each university. Thus, potential graduate students should confirm that a field of interest is available at a particular university before applying.

Table 4 identifies the top 20 schools in each field. This table also identifies the number of faculty in each school who publish in the field regardless of where they publish or whether the journal is listed in the SSCI. Table 4 also shows the HHI for each of the top 20 schools in the field. For example, referring to Carnegie Mellon University, the value for the HHI in general economics and teaching (JEL subject code A) is 0.18, whereas for Cornell University the HHI is 1.0. At Carnegie Mellon, publication in this field is spread out among the eight members of the faculty who publish in this area. At Cornell, however, all the publications listed in SSCI are attributed to a single faculty member. (Although at Cornell, three people have published in this area, only one person has published in journals listed in the SSCI.) As another example, for JEL subject code I (health, education, and welfare), Stanford University has nine faculty members who have published in this area and an HHI of 0.63. Michigan State University is ranked slightly lower than Stanford and has 10 faculty publishing in the area with an HHI of 0.16. If a student wishes to pursue a graduate degree in economics at Stanford University with an emphasis in health, education, and welfare, he or she should realize that the scholarly activity in this area at Stanford is concentrated in a few of the nine people who publish in the area, while at Michigan State University, the publications are more evenly distributed across the faculty in this area.

The fifth column in Table 4, "Importance Index," demonstrates the importance of a particular field for a department relative to its overall productivity. The importance index simply divides a department's productivity score for a particular field by the department's overall productivity score. Refer to Princeton University, which ranks as the top department in JEL subject codes B and F, methodology and history of economic thought and international economics, respectively. For methodology and history of economic thought, Princeton has an importance index of 2%, and for international economics, Princeton has an importance index of 12%. This indicates that methodology and history of economic thought is more likely a spillover category and not the primary focus of the department's overall research agenda.

4. Conclusion

The primary objective of this article is to provide information to undergraduate students and to their advisers on the research strengths of 129 economics doctoral programs in the United States. We provide both total and average, or per capita, research productivity measures for publishing faculty and identify schools that are highly ranked in the many different subject fields of economics.

A noticeable feature of our total productivity rankings is that the distinction between schools diminishes as their rank declines. The data demonstrate that per capita and total productivity measures result in differences in quality rankings, where total productivity is influenced by both the number of publishing faculty and the productivity of each faculty member. Students searching for graduate schools may benefit from considering both the average quality of the faculty and the total quality of the department.

For students who have a strong interest in a specific subject field of economics, we identify the schools that may best fit with the student's desires. As a cautionary note, we provide HHI measures that alert students to the possibility that some departments may have a top reputation in a subject field due to having a single, very influential faculty member.

Although this information should be helpful to students applying to graduate school, applicants should be mindful of several things. First, one should apply to many different Ph.D. programs. The loss from a redundant application is much smaller than the loss of not applying to a place that could become one's best offer (or maybe help to get a better deal elsewhere). Second, although a student will benefit by attending a university ranked highly in his or her preferred field, a major consideration should still be the overall quality of the department. There are several benefits of attending a highly ranked school: (i) a student often learns a lot from his or her classmates, who perhaps are better students; (ii) students may change their preferences during their studies, and our study shows that highly ranked departments overall are strong in many fields; and (iii) students may be more successful in their job search if they graduated from a department that is highly ranked overall. While this article can be a useful tool to start with, when actually choosing between competing offers, prospective students should check out department websites and relevant curricula vital themselves. (12)

Finally, our work shows that many top-ranked programs based on total productivity measures are able to provide an education that is broad in nature and that gives access to many of the subject fields of economics. For students who are interested in a specific subject field, attending a traditionally top-ranked program will likely not limit the student's ability to conduct future research in an applied discipline. At the same time, however, for students who will not attend a top-ranked school based on total productivity measures, they will likely attend a program with actively publishing faculty, and if they choose their programs correctly, it will still be possible to obtain a top-ranked education in one of the subfields of economics.

Assistance in data gathering was provided by Adrienne Strong.

Received January 2007; accepted August 2007.

References

Barbezat, Debra A. 1992. The market for new Ph.D. economists. Journal of Economic Education 23:262-76.

Dusansky, Richard, and Clayton J. Vernon. 1998. Rankings of U.S. economics departments. Journal of Economic Perspectives 12:157-70.

Graves, Philip E., James R. Marchand, and Randel Thompson. 1982. Economics departmental rankings: Research incentives, constraints, and efficiency. American Economic Review 5:1131-41.

Journal of Economic Literature. 1991. Classification system: Old and new categories. Journal of Economic Literature 29:xviii-xxviii.

Laband, David N., and Michael J. Piette. 1994. The relative impacts of economics journals: 1970-1990. Journal of Economic Literature 32:640-66.

McMillen, Daniel P., and Larry D. Singell, Jr. 1994. Gender differences in first jobs for economists. Southern Economic Journal 60:701-14.

Siegfried, John J., and Wendy Stock. 2004. The labor market for new Ph.D. economists in 2002. American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings 94:272-85.

Stock, Wendy, and Richard M. Alston. 2000. The effect of graduate program rank on success in the job market. Journal of Economic Education 31:389-401.

Thursby, Jerry G. 2000. What do we say about ourselves and what does it mean? Yet another look at economics department research. Journal of Economic Literature 38:383-404.

Tschirhart, John. 1989. Ranking economics departments in areas of expertise. Journal of Economic Education 20:199-222.

Therese C. Grijalva * and Clifford Nowell ([dagger])

* Department of Economics, Weber State University, Ogden, UT 84408-3807, USA; E-mail [email protected]; corresponding author.

([dagger]) Department of Economics. Weber State University, Ogden, UT 84408-3807, USA: E-mail [email protected].

(1) Available at http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/ phdhum/phdhumindex_brief.php (July 2007).

(2) Departments offering doctorates in agricultural economics were not included in the analysis.

(3) Available at http://www.albany.edu/econ/eco_phds.html (July 2007).

(4) Available at http://www.petersons.com/graduate_home.asp?path=gr.home (July 2007).

(5) Coauthors listed as "et al." rather than by name in Econlit are not identified specifically by Econlit.

(6) Articles with four or more authors or in articles where coauthors are not specifically identified (i.e., et al.) are treated as having four authors.

(7) An alternative to using impact factors is to use total citations per journal per year. We chose to use impact factors to be consistent with past research (e.g., see Tschirhart 1989).

(8) In 1991, JEL modified its classification system. We followed the JEL recommendations in mapping pre-1991 subject codes to post-1991 subject codes (Journal of Economic Literature 1991).

(9) It should be noted that in the case of an HHI of 1.0, more than one faculty member may publish in this area, yet because other faculty members' publications may not be indexed in the SSCI, they are not recognized in our data as contributing to the department's research productivity.

(10) The field strength index measures only the department's relative productivity in its top field. It is possible that a department has a higher field strength rating in a field other than its top field.

(11) These data were acquired by calling and e-mailing the graduate advisers or the department administrators at each university. In some cases, multiple attempts were made to contact the department and acquire this information.

(12) We thank an anonymous referee for pointing out these cautionary notes.

Table 1. The JEL Classification System for Journal Articles

Codes Beginning
with the Letter Description

A General economics and teaching
B Methodology and history of economic thought
C Mathematical and quantitative methods
D Microeconomics
E Macroeconomics and monetary policy
F International economics
G Financial economics
H Public economics
I Health, education, and welfare
J Labor and demographic economics
K Law and economics
L Industrial organization
N Economic history
O Economic development, technological change,
 and growth
P Economic systems
Q Agricultural and natural resource economics
R Urban, rural, and regional economics

Table 2. Overall Rankings for Ph.D.-Granting Institutions in Economics

 Overall
 Productivity Z-Score Per Faculty
School Rank (SSCI) (SSCI) Rank (SSCI)

Harvard U 1 5.08 1
UC Berkeley 2 4.09 4
Princeton U 3 3.79 3
MIT 4 3.29 2
Yale U 5 2.18 11
U Michigan 6 1.92 18
New York U 7 1.92 8
UCLA 8 1.76 16
Stanford U 9 1.75 13
U Chicago 10 1.50 5
Columbia U 11 1.48 9
Northwestern U 12 1.43 12
UC San Diego 13 1.35 6
U Wisconsin, Madison 14 1.08 10
Boston U 15 0.93 22
U Pennsylvania 16 0.91 15
Ohio State U 17 0.84 28
Michigan State U 18 0.83 49
Cornell U 19 0.64 23
U Virginia 20 0.52 17
U Maryland, College Park 21 0.49 27
U Illinois, Urbana 22 0.46 38
Carnegie Mellon U 23 0.45 41
Duke U 24 0.44 31
UC Davis 25 0.44 25
U Southern California 26 0.43 19
U Texas, Austin 27 0.38 24
Brown U 28 0.38 29
U Minnesota 29 0.37 20
North Carolina State U 30 0.37 58
Iowa State U 31 0.35 59
Vanderbilt U 32 0.35 35
Johns Hopkins U 33 0.24 14
Syracuse U 34 0.24 53
Pennsylvania State U 35 0.24 43
Georgetown U 36 0.22 40
Boston College 37 0.15 26
California Inst Tech 38 0.09 7
U of Rochester 39 0.09 21
UNC, Chapel Hill 40 0.08 48
George Mason U 41 0.08 55
U Colorado, Boulder 42 0.05 56
UC Santa Cruz 43 0.01 30
City University of
 New York (CUNY) 44 0.00 98
U Washington 45 -0.04 50
U Illinois, Chicago 46 -0.04 34
Arizona State U 47 -0.07 57
Rice U 48 -0.08 36
Texas A&M U 49 -0.09 60
Georgia State U 50 -0.12 69
UC Santa Barbara 51 -0.12 63
Florida State U 52 -0.14 61
Indiana U 53 -0.19 46
George Washington U 54 -0.22 75
Rutgers U 55 -0.22 70
UC Riverside 56 -0.23 44
U Oregon 57 -0.25 54
U Houston 58 -0.26 72
U Pittsburgh 59 -0.26 68
U Iowa 60 -0.28 52
U Wyoming 61 -0.30 32
U Arizona 62 -0.32 51
U Kentucky 63 -0.34 45
U Florida 64 -0.35 64
Southern Methodist U 65 -0.36 62
Clemson U 66 -0.37 73
Purdue U 67 -0.39 76
U Connecticut 68 -0.41 89
Washington U, St. Louis 69 -0.41 67
U Massachusetts, Amherst 70 -0.43 85
Emory U 71 -0.43 66
UC Irvine 72 -0.44 81
U South Carolina 73 -0.44 39
U Georgia 74 -0.46 65
Virginia Tech 75 -0.47 74
U Albany 76 -0.47 71
SUNY Binghamton 77 -0.48 77
Wayne State U 78 -0.49 47
U Wisconsin, Milwaukee 79 -0.49 95
U Delaware 80 -0.50 101
American U 81 -0.52 102
U Missouri, Columbia 82 -0.53 78
U Kansas 83 -0.54 93
RPI 84 -0.54 33
SUNY Buffalo 85 -0.54 83
U Nebraska, Lincoln 86 -0.55 84
Florida International U 87 -0.57 92
U Notre Dame 88 -0.57 42
U Alabama 89 -0.59 96
U Oklahoma 90 -0.60 97
Brandeis U 91 -0.61 37
Louisiana State U 92 -0.62 80
SUNY Stony Brook 93 -0.62 91
Oregon State U 94 -0.63 86
Lehigh U 95 -0.64 99
U Miami 96 -0.64 79
Auburn U 97 -0.64 90
New School U 98 -0.64 87
Washington State U 99 -0.65 88
Tulane U (e) 100 -0.65 104
Oklahoma State U 101 -0.66 105
Southern Illinois U,
 Carbondale 102 -0.67 94
Northern Illinois U 103 -0.67 100
West Virginia U 104 -0.68 112
U New Orleans 105 -0.68 114
Colorado State U 106 -0.68 117
U Tennessee, Knoxville 107 -0.69 107
U Hawaii, Manoa 108 -0.69 116
U Utah 109 -0.69 124
U Arkansas 110 -0.70 108
Western Michigan U 111 -0.70 120
Temple U 112 -0.71 125
U New Mexico 113 -0.71 113
U Mississippi 114 -0.71 111
Kansas State U 115 -0.71 115
Fordham U 116 -0.72 109
U Rhode Island 117 -0.72 103
U New Hampshire 118 -0.73 122
Utah State U 119 -0.73 128
Northeastern U 120 -0.74 118
Claremont Graduate U 121 -0.74 82
U Missouri, Kansas City 122 -0.74 106
Clark U 123 -0.75 110
Portland State U 124 -0.76 121
Middle Tennessee State 125 -0.76 126
Colorado School of Mines 126 -0.76 123
Texas Tech U 127 -0.80 119
Suffolk U 128 -0.81 127
Howard U 129 -0.81 129

 Overall
 Productivity Top Field HHI
School Rank (JEL) (SSCI) (SSCI)

Harvard U 1 G 0.03
UC Berkeley 3 D 0.03
Princeton U 2 D 0.04
MIT 4 J 0.05
Yale U 5 C 0.07
U Michigan 7 J 0.03
New York U 9 D 0.04
UCLA 6 D 0.04
Stanford U 8 D 0.04
U Chicago 10 D 0.05
Columbia U 11 F 0.09
Northwestern U 12 C 0.06
UC San Diego 13 C 0.05
U Wisconsin, Madison 14 C 0.06
Boston U 15 J 0.05
U Pennsylvania 17 J 0.07
Ohio State U 16 D 0.05
Michigan State U 19 J 0.08
Cornell U 22 D 0.06
U Virginia 18 D 0.08
U Maryland, College Park 20 H 0.05
U Illinois, Urbana 24 C 0.05
Carnegie Mellon U 25 G 0.05
Duke U 23 C 0.06
UC Davis 29 F 0.06
U Southern California 32 D 0.11
U Texas, Austin 26 J 0.08
Brown U 27 0 0.06
U Minnesota 28 D 0.07
North Carolina State U 30 Q 0.06
Iowa State U 21 Q 0.04
Vanderbilt U 31 E 0.06
Johns Hopkins U 33 D 0.11
Syracuse U 37 J 0.05
Pennsylvania State U 39 D 0.05
Georgetown U 40 E 0.07
Boston College 34 D 0.10
California Inst Tech 38 D 0.13
U of Rochester 36 D 0.10
UNC, Chapel Hill 41 J 0.09
George Mason U 35 D 0.06
U Colorado, Boulder 43 F 0.06
UC Santa Cruz 44 F 0.10
City University of
 New York (CUNY) 47 J 0.04
U Washington 46 E 0.12
U Illinois, Chicago 50 J 0.10
Arizona State U 42 C 0.07
Rice U 51 C 0.10
Texas A&M U 45 C 0.06
Georgia State U 48 J 0.08
UC Santa Barbara 52 D 0.07
Florida State U 49 J 0.08
Indiana U 54 E 0.09
George Washington U 57 F 0.06
Rutgers U 55 F 0.07
UC Riverside 56 D 0.12
U Oregon 53 F 0.09
U Houston 59 J 0.07
U Pittsburgh 63 C 0.07
U Iowa 58 C 0.11
U Wyoming 68 Q 0.14
U Arizona 66 D 0.10
U Kentucky 61 H 0.16
U Florida 60 C 0.09
Southern Methodist U 65 D 0.09
Clemson U 64 J 0.09
Purdue U 62 D 0.10
U Connecticut 71 R 0.11
Washington U, St. Louis 69 D 0.15
U Massachusetts, Amherst 73 J 0.09
Emory U 67 D 0.14
UC Irvine 77 D 0.07
U South Carolina 74 J 0.24
U Georgia 72 E 0.11
Virginia Tech 78 D 0.09
U Albany 80 J 0.13
SUNY Binghamton 70 Q 0.16
Wayne State U 75 R 0.23
U Wisconsin, Milwaukee 79 J 0.15
U Delaware 76 E 0.09
American U 81 J 0.09
U Missouri, Columbia 83 J 0.10
U Kansas 85 C 0.14
RPI 94 O (c) 0.20
SUNY Buffalo 86 R 0.19
U Nebraska, Lincoln 82 A 0.13
Florida International U 93 F 0.15
U Notre Dame 84 G (c) 0.23
U Alabama 87 C (c) 0.14
U Oklahoma 88 D 0.13
Brandeis U 89 E 0.42
Louisiana State U 90 J 0.13
SUNY Stony Brook 96 D 0.14
Oregon State U 95 D (d) 0.19
Lehigh U 97 J 0.11
U Miami 91 J 0.27
Auburn U 92 L 0.14
New School U 104 E 0.22
Washington State U 105 L 0.20
Tulane U (e) 99 Q 0.12
Oklahoma State U 103 R 0.15
Southern Illinois U,
 Carbondale 100 C (c) 0.15
Northern Illinois U 102 J 0.17
West Virginia U 101 H 0.16
U New Orleans 109 G 0.13
Colorado State U 106 R 0.14
U Tennessee, Knoxville 110 H 0.10
U Hawaii, Manoa 114 Q 0.13
U Utah 107 J 0.11
U Arkansas 112 D 0.10
Western Michigan U 116 J 0.17
Temple U 108 J 0.15
U New Mexico 117 Q 0.08
U Mississippi 98 C 0.13
Kansas State U 119 L 0.17
Fordham U 118 C 0.15
U Rhode Island 115 Q 0.28
U New Hampshire 121 J (cd) 0.20
Utah State U 113 Q 0.17
Northeastern U 120 L 0.10
Claremont Graduate U 124 F 0.25
U Missouri, Kansas City 111 E 0.23
Clark U 123 F 0.30
Portland State U 122 J (cf) 0.25
Middle Tennessee State 125 J 0.18
Colorado School of Mines 127 Q 0.26
Texas Tech U 126 1 0.28
Suffolk U 129 L 0.55
Howard U 128 F 0.29

 Average
 Ph.D.
 Field Graduates
 Strength (2002-2007)
School Index (SSCI) (a)

Harvard U 1 31
UC Berkeley 1 23
Princeton U 0.88 19
MIT 1 21
Yale U 1 18
U Michigan 0.74 9
New York U 0.72 10
UCLA 0.51 23
Stanford U 0.63 20
U Chicago 0.58 36
Columbia U 0.85 11
Northwestern U 0.54 22
UC San Diego 0.65 13
U Wisconsin, Madison 0.51 17
Boston U 0.45 13
U Pennsylvania 0.50 12
Ohio State U 0.39 15
Michigan State U 0.58 12
Cornell U 0.28 10
U Virginia 0.34 9
U Maryland, College Park 0.54 25
U Illinois, Urbana 0.23 12
Carnegie Mellon U 0.45 5 (b)
Duke U 0.16 10
UC Davis 0.38 7
U Southern California 0.38 7
U Texas, Austin 0.41 10
Brown U 0.41 7
U Minnesota 0.34 13
North Carolina State U 0.95 9
Iowa State U 1 7
Vanderbilt U 0.18 6
Johns Hopkins U 0.37 8
Syracuse U 0.31 6
Pennsylvania State U 0.23 12
Georgetown U 0.20 7
Boston College 0.29 8
California Inst Tech 0.46 4
U of Rochester 0.30 12
UNC, Chapel Hill 0.31 12
George Mason U 0.28 15
U Colorado, Boulder 0.31 10
UC Santa Cruz 0.31 7
City University of
 New York (CUNY) 0.32 9
U Washington 0.20 14
U Illinois, Chicago 0.31 5
Arizona State U 0.13 2
Rice U 0.21 5
Texas A&M U 0.20 9
Georgia State U 0.27 11
UC Santa Barbara 0.13 10
Florida State U 0.22 4
Indiana U 0.14 6
George Washington U 0.14 4
Rutgers U 0.14 3
UC Riverside 0.19 5
U Oregon 0.15 6
U Houston 0.20 6 (b)
U Pittsburgh 0.15 7
U Iowa 0.16 4
U Wyoming 0.45 3
U Arizona 0.15 6
U Kentucky 0.42 5
U Florida 0.06 6
Southern Methodist U 0.12 3
Clemson U 0.13 7
Purdue U 0.10 8
U Connecticut 0.46 5
Washington U, St. Louis 0.18 8
U Massachusetts, Amherst 0.12 8
Emory U 0.07 4
UC Irvine 0.06 10
U South Carolina 0.33 7
U Georgia 0.07 3
Virginia Tech 0.10 4
U Albany 0.12 5
SUNY Binghamton 0.18 4
Wayne State U 0.55 4
U Wisconsin, Milwaukee 0.16 6
U Delaware 0.05 6
American U 0.07 7
U Missouri, Columbia 0.10 7
U Kansas 0.06 3
RPI 0.11 2 (b)
SUNY Buffalo 0.41 2
U Nebraska, Lincoln 0.88 2
Florida International U 0.15 12
U Notre Dame 0.04 5
U Alabama 0.05 5
U Oklahoma 0.07 5
Brandeis U 0.11 2
Louisiana State U 0.06 13
SUNY Stony Brook 0.11 10
Oregon State U 0.07 5
Lehigh U 0.04 3
U Miami 0.09 2
Auburn U 0.11 2
New School U 0.08 12
Washington State U 0.10 10
Tulane U (e) 0.07 Suspended
Oklahoma State U 0.36 5
Southern Illinois U,
 Carbondale 0.03 6
Northern Illinois U 0.13 2
West Virginia U 0.06 8
U New Orleans 0.06 3
Colorado State U 0.15 4
U Tennessee, Knoxville 0.12 5
U Hawaii, Manoa 0.06 6
U Utah 0.06 10
U Arkansas 0.02 1
Western Michigan U 0.06 4
Temple U 0.03 3 (b)
U New Mexico 0.11 5
U Mississippi 0.03 4
Kansas State U 0.08 4
Fordham U 0.05 8
U Rhode Island 0.21 4
U New Hampshire 0.04 2
Utah State U 0.15 3
Northeastern U 0.16 New program
Claremont Graduate U 0.04 10
U Missouri, Kansas City 0.05 18
Clark U 0.04 4
Portland State U 0.03 0 (f)
Middle Tennessee State 0.04 3
Colorado School of Mines 0.10 3
Texas Tech U 0.05 6
Suffolk U 0.02 New program
Howard U 0.01 1 (b)

(a) This column of data represents the average number (rounded up) of
doctorates granted by each university in the past five years and was
acquired by calling each university. It should be noted that these
data provide no information regarding retention rates. While multiple
attempts were made to contact several universities, we were unable to
acquire this information for some departments; as such, NA (not
available) is used to represent these instances.

(b) This information was obtained by counting and then averaging the
number of doctoral dissertations listed in the December 2004, 2005,
and 2006 issues of the Journal of Economic Literature.

(c) The top field at this school is not an offered field. The top
offered field for the following schools is RPI, Q; U Notre Dame, F;
U Alabama, E; Southern Illinois U at Carbondale, F; U of New
Hampshire, D; and Portland State U, O. U of Notre Dame offers a field
in E, which may be closely related to G. At U of Alabama, the Ph.D.
in economics is offered out of the Business School, where a Ph.D. in
applied statistics is available. U of New Hampshire offers a field in
1, which may be closely related to J.

(d) School may or may not offer a field in microeconomic theory (D)
but does offer multiple fields in applied microeconomics.

(e) At the time of this writing, Tulane U had suspended its Ph.D.
program because of Hurricane Katrina.

(f) Portland State U does not offer a Ph.D. in economics. The
university offers doctoral degrees in urban studies and systems
science, both of which offer an emphasis in economics.

Table 3. Field Rankings (based on first-listed
JEL code for publications) (a)

 THE JEL Classification System
 for Journal Articles

School A B C D E F

American U 49 32 70 105 78 56
Arizona State U 58 77 34 40 30 34
Auburn U 35 51 86 87 117 *
Boston College 69 72 35 23 29 22
Boston U * 56 14 19 11 29
Brandeis U * * 110 120 34 116
Brown U 51 68 28 38 48 37
California Inst Tech 48 35 15 11 87 78
Carnegie Mellon U 2 17 38 33 26 66
City U of New York 76 24 90 72 47 52
Claremont Graduate U 90 76 * 110 112 67
Clark U * *. * * 121 62
Clemson U 25 67 103 66 84 71
Colorado School of Mines * * * 126 * *
Colorado State U 82 18 122 108 96 85
Columbia U 18 6 37 20 6 3
Cornell U 17 58 17 24 37 41
Duke U 37 10 27 39 31 19
Emory U 21 82 62 63 44 46
Florida International U * 83 82 102 77 25
Florida State U 70 43 81 62 50 70
Fordham U * 87 64 125 86 68
George Mason U 9 3 40 25 79 99
George Washington U 42 73 67 70 58 30
Georgetown U * * 48 46 20 18
Georgia State U 14 16 68 65 104 97
Harvard U 15 7 5 3 1 2
Howard U * * 118 127 118 103
Indiana U 5 * 53 53 28 43
Iowa State U 30 * 44 31 62 51
Johns Hopkins U 24 9 39 15 13 79
Kansas State U * 79 114 109 67 115
Lehigh U 33 46 93 88 102 77
Louisiana State U 79 * 87 95 71 89
MIT 6 5 3 5 4 38
Michigan State U 32 26 23 44 72 21
Middle Tennessee State * 47 117 124 119 83
New School U * 41 111 113 41 84
New York U 16 4 9 4 7 14
North Carolina State U 39 * 32 52 36 63
Northeastern U 50 42 * 128 108 113
Northern Illinois U * * 119 97 110 110
Northwestern U 34 37 4 10 5 36
Ohio State U 47 57 13 13 17 23
Oklahoma State U 81 38 104 115 115 92
Oregon State U 74 59 79 67 125 114
Pennsylvania State U 67 11 21 28 40 32
Portland State U 78 49 116 116 89 118
Princeton U 12 1 7 2 2 1
Purdue U 13 * 69 49 65 45
RPI 55 71 88 106 114 117
Rice U * * 19 35 60 109
Rutgers U 89 * 61 57 46 28
S. Illinois U, Carbondale * 45 75 81 92 60
Southern Methodist U * 75 41 47 68 47
Stanford U 26 21 18 6 14 9
Suffolk U * * 95 123 * 120
SUNY Binghamton * 63 63 77 98 *
SUNY Buffalo * 53 83 78 105 111
SUNY Stony Brook * * 91 50 109 *
Syracuse U 27 44 49 42 66 42
Temple U * 55 109 91 111 102
Texas A&M U 29 * 20 37 73 76
Texas Tech U 91 80 121 119 103 *
Tulane U * * 99 104 * 75
U Alabama 45 48 58 76 55 69
U Albany * 60 57 68 75 48
U Arizona 85 74 45 41 122 *
U Arkansas * * 89 89 106 100
UC Berkeley 4 2 8 1 3 4
UC Davis 41 19 43 32 15 8
UC Irvine * 23 66 69 59 82
UC Los Angeles 28 84 10 9 8 6
UC Riverside * 81 33 34 64 73
UC San Diego 40 70 2 26 12 13
UC Santa Barbara 56 * 47 45 49 90
UC Santa Cruz 73 29 65 55 24 11
U Chicago 10 14 56 7 25 26
U Colorado, Boulder 86 52 77 59 82 12
U Connecticut 92 65 84 73 85 94
U Delaware 54 * 98 86 53 105
U Florida 38 * 50 74 69 40
U Georgia 71 64 76 75 42 81
U Hawaii, Manoa * * 96 100 99 64
U Houston 62 39 59 61 83 24
U Illinois, Chicago 23 15 85 71 57 88
U Illinois, Urbana 63 27 16 29 32 39
U Iowa * * 29 84 27 55
U Kansas 36 34 54 82 61 96
U Kentucky 61 78 92 83 63 61
U Maryland, College Park 88 86 36 30 35 10
U Mass, Amherst 64 33 101 85 70 50
U Miami * * 80 111 123 59
U Michigan 19 61 25 17 9 7
U Minnesota * 12 55 16 16 31
U Mississippi 68 * 78 90 81 121
U Missouri, Columbia 84 * 60 101 45 91
U Missouri, Kansas City * 13 123 122 54 *
U Nebraska, Lincoln 3 20 97 103 74 95
U New Hampshire * 22 112 96 120 101
U New Mexico 65 * 120 112 101 93
U New Orleans * * 100 92 107 87
UNC, Chapel Hill 20 66 24 58 56 54
U Notre Dame * * 74 79 52 49
U Oklahoma 66 * 107 64 80 80
U Oregon 7 * 52 54 43 27
U Pennsylvania 52 36 11 12 23 15
U Pittsburgh * * 30 48 38 65
U Rhode Island 44 * 105 114 * *
U Rochester 22 25 31 21 19 33
U South Carolina 60 * 94 118 91 58
U Southern California 72 30 12 14 51 57
U Tennessee, Knoxville * * 106 117 97 72
U Texas, Austin 11 85 26 27 39 44
U Utah * 40 113 121 100 107
U Virginia 1 * 22 18 33 16
U Washington 59 * 51 56 21 17
U Wisconsin, Madison 43 69 6 22 18 5
U Wisconsin, Milwaukee 75 * 102 93 93 53
U Wyoming 53 * 73 60 90 108
Utah State U 46 * 115 107 124 112
Vanderbilt U 8 28 42 43 22 20
Virginia Tech 31 31 46 51 88 104
Washington State U 77 * * 80 113 106
Washington U, St. Louis 83 50 71 36 76 119
Wayne State U * 62 72 94 94 74
West Virginia U 80 * 108 98 95 86
Western Michigan U 87 54 * 99 116 98
Yale U 57 8 1 8 10 35

 THE JEL Classification System
 for Journal Articles

School G H I J K L

American U 88 77 60 64 63 73
Arizona State U 32 94 35 37 53 99
Auburn U 78 71 65 95 57 38
Boston College 53 38 41 67 * 59
Boston U 24 12 15 10 12 10
Brandeis U 54 121 106 110 59 77
Brown U 50 28 32 15 75 103
California Inst Tech 21 32 * 92 28 41
Carnegie Mellon U 3 18 24 98 * 30
City U of New York 19 43 5 18 41 55
Claremont Graduate U 95 78 * 120 * 126
Clark U 116 * * 113 * 82
Clemson U 52 55 33 41 15 48
Colorado School of Mines * * * 127 * 63
Colorado State U 84 84 90 111 80 93
Columbia U 12 9 22 49 18 11
Cornell U 16 13 6 24 48 54
Duke U 15 23 17 60 27 12
Emory U 57 65 100 115 13 85
Florida International U 114 110 73 118 * 100
Florida State U 55 34 54 25 9 51
Fordham U 79 * 95 121 * 123
George Mason U 39 25 92 55 11 57
George Washington U 33 31 37 58 39 33
Georgetown U 26 33 78 57 * 17
Georgia State U 82 11 47 23 60 96
Harvard U 1 3 1 2 2 6
Howard U * 105 * 119 * *
Indiana U 70 41 30 82 79 121
Iowa State U 43 52 58 39 65 35
Johns Hopkins U 61 37 11 30 * 52
Kansas State U 118 106 99 78 * 53
Lehigh U 121 85 51 86 * 104
Louisiana State U 83 73 42 69 * 106
MIT 5 2 4 1 8 2
Michigan State U 25 10 12 6 66 23
Middle Tennessee State 99 * 83 79 * 124
New School U 74 120 * 96 * 107
New York U 8 27 27 17 69 16
North Carolina State U 40 51 44 29 56 25
Northeastern U 109 * * 126 73 27
Northern Illinois U 87 81 82 42 81 114
Northwestern U 58 30 20 13 * 7
Ohio State U 10 59 13 22 31 24
Oklahoma State U 93 92 85 109 74 92
Oregon State U 106 96 69 114 * 40
Pennsylvania State U 66 70 70 47 37 36
Portland State U * 119 87 101 * 105
Princeton U 2 14 2 4 6 20
Purdue U 56 95 88 84 * 34
RPI * 90 64 77 * 56
Rice U 44 6 77 72 * 71
Rutgers U 37 53 94 80 40 50
S. Illinois U, Carbondale 117 112 103 124 49 112
Southern Methodist U 80 39 55 93 * 66
Stanford U 9 15 8 14 33 5
Suffolk U 103 115 101 122 * 95
SUNY Binghamton 81 107 107 54 54 74
SUNY Buffalo 98 93 56 105 14 78
SUNY Stony Brook 105 117 102 56 42 97
Syracuse U 30 7 25 20 68 102
Temple U 101 80 80 90 35 98
Texas A&M U 63 26 57 46 29 44
Texas Tech U 111 104 * 75 * 117
Tulane U 89 83 * 107 * 64
U Alabama 97 79 * 108 19 94
U Albany 75 61 61 43 * *
U Arizona 119 91 * 33 62 28
U Arkansas 85 116 * 100 32 87
UC Berkeley 7 4 16 3 1 1
UC Davis 45 29 98 52 * 14
UC Irvine 60 75 75 62 * 91
UC Los Angeles 18 45 * 7 30 3
UC Riverside 123 42 50 97 71 70
UC San Diego 6 16 * 26 5 21
UC Santa Barbara 17 21 45 81 38 29
UC Santa Cruz 27 58 * 34 24 49
U Chicago 4 19 14 8 7 4
U Colorado, Boulder 104 24 46 36 77 31
U Connecticut 71 87 59 66 4 75
U Delaware 67 86 36 74 * 45
U Florida 77 36 23 70 50 43
U Georgia 41 44 66 85 43 60
U Hawaii, Manoa * 109 * 112 * 84
U Houston 65 82 40 28 51 62
U Illinois, Chicago 102 60 7 19 55 113
U Illinois, Urbana 11 22 39 38 44 15
U Iowa 34 74 62 76 * 61
U Kansas 62 * 104 87 22 89
U Kentucky 92 8 26 73 82 101
U Maryland, College Park 42 5 10 50 23 26
U Mass, Amherst 59 100 48 45 * 90
U Miami 94 101 43 59 * *
U Michigan 14 1 3 5 10 8
U Minnesota 28 48 21 48 61 46
U Mississippi 91 88 86 117 72 79
U Missouri, Columbia 73 * 72 53 * 67
U Missouri, Kansas City 122 118 * 106 * 116
U Nebraska, Lincoln 113 76 89 99 76 72
U New Hampshire * 97 79 83 * 120
U New Mexico 115 102 63 102 * 81
U New Orleans 31 103 * 125 * 108
UNC, Chapel Hill 22 35 31 21 36 58
U Notre Dame 38 108 76 * 34 110
U Oklahoma 86 89 109 61 * 76
U Oregon 49 64 52 65 * 65
U Pennsylvania 47 56 9 9 58 37
U Pittsburgh 64 72 93 104 26 83
U Rhode Island 112 113 97 * * 119
U Rochester 46 67 91 51 70 122
U South Carolina 96 62 49 16 * 115
U Southern California 51 47 34 31 52 13
U Tennessee, Knoxville 100 49 108 103 67 109
U Texas, Austin 36 20 38 11 64 39
U Utah 110 * 67 71 * 88
U Virginia 29 50 29 32 21 9
U Washington 23 69 110 40 25 68
U Wisconsin, Madison 20 17 19 27 17 19
U Wisconsin, Milwaukee 90 114 81 35 78 47
U Wyoming 35 68 * 123 46 22
Utah State U 120 111 96 116 * 125
Vanderbilt U 48 40 28 44 3 32
Virginia Tech 69 63 84 94 47 80
Washington State U 72 99 53 91 * 42
Washington U, St. Louis 76 57 74 63 * 111
Wayne State U 107 46 68 88 20 69
West Virginia U 68 66 105 89 45 86
Western Michigan U 108 98 71 68 * 118
Yale U 13 54 18 12 16 18

 THE JEL Classification System
 for Journal Articles

School N O P Q R

American U 56 46 41 74 *
Arizona State U 83 25 6 99 94
Auburn U 79 120 * 107 52
Boston College 84 50 * 91 5
Boston U 33 26 52 33 71
Brandeis U 40 87 17 44 *
Brown U 57 7 11 18 29
California Inst Tech 41 103 * 52 *
Carnegie Mellon U 54 53 48 56 55
City U of New York 23 56 14 102 87
Claremont Graduate U 63 71 57 113 *
Clark U 34 97 * 68 96
Clemson U 42 57 76 87 59
Colorado School of Mines * 123 * 29 *
Colorado State U 73 116 25 83 38
Columbia U 13 8 3 26 26
Cornell U 75 10 24 46 35
Duke U 37 13 82 64 76
Emory U * 49 * 50 97
Florida International U 26 38 55 79 *
Florida State U 50 60 72 35 7
Fordham U * 94 * * *
George Mason U 52 66 43 47 79
George Washington U 69 28 42 27 77
Georgetown U * 27 * 9 69
Georgia State U 64 84 46 20 8
Harvard U 2 1 2 4 2
Howard U * * * 112 *
Indiana U 77 30 27 38 68
Iowa State U * 22 40 1 33
Johns Hopkins U * 64 * 40 60
Kansas State U * 118 * 114 88
Lehigh U 25 82 31 72 82
Louisiana State U 86 89 * 106 50
MIT 4 5 13 7 4
Michigan State U 71 18 26 61 67
Middle Tennessee State * 98 * 98 *
New School U * 40 47 * 101
New York U 20 4 22 34 32
North Carolina State U 27 80 39 2 44
Northeastern U 67 92 * * *
Northern Illinois U * 99 * 117 80
Northwestern U 16 16 74 90 45
Ohio State U 18 42 29 85 31
Oklahoma State U 81 73 * 58 19
Oregon State U 87 90 * 57 86
Pennsylvania State U * 17 21 48 18
Portland State U * 91 59 62 102
Princeton U 7 6 12 21 10
Purdue U * 111 65 22 103
RPI 76 24 * 14 42
Rice U * 100 * 65 43
Rutgers U 8 48 67 17 73
S. Illinois U, Carbondale 70 65 64 59 *
Southern Methodist U 78 61 * 24 70
Stanford U 6 12 10 11 21
Suffolk U 61 121 * 93 *
SUNY Binghamton 19 95 * 10 56
SUNY Buffalo * 55 35 100 15
SUNY Stony Brook 65 96 * * 81
Syracuse U 74 45 79 39 3
Temple U * 114 54 104 61
Texas A&M U 46 54 28 84 74
Texas Tech U * * * 118 *
Tulane U 38 85 * 36 48
U Alabama 89 101 81 82 98
U Albany * 81 * * *
U Arizona 9 68 * 75 *
U Arkansas * 77 50 60 83
UC Berkeley 1 2 1 30 6
UC Davis 5 41 8 70 64
UC Irvine 30 39 18 80 92
UC Los Angeles 10 3 30 92 72
UC Riverside 72 79 * 81 16
UC San Diego 90 35 32 16 11
UC Santa Barbara * 86 * 6 100
UC Santa Cruz 48 29 58 89 104
U Chicago * 11 9 67 46
U Colorado, Boulder 11 44 75 12 14
U Connecticut 44 70 78 15 12
U Delaware 15 107 63 110 36
U Florida 51 52 73 109 30
U Georgia 47 122 * 63 91
U Hawaii, Manoa 49 59 66 41 58
U Houston 55 83 56 116 23
U Illinois, Chicago 12 104 44 88 1
U Illinois, Urbana 32 19 20 37 13
U Iowa * 69 * 69 66
U Kansas 28 117 * 43 54
U Kentucky 45 78 51 86 17
U Maryland, College Park 29 20 4 28 57
U Mass, Amherst 43 31 33 31 62
U Miami * 58 * 73 *
U Michigan 17 15 5 51 39
U Minnesota 66 14 49 66 24
U Mississippi 53 * * 94 *
U Missouri, Columbia * 75 * 105 49
U Missouri, Kansas City * * 45 * *
U Nebraska, Lincoln 80 105 62 49 53
U New Hampshire * 88 * 76 93
U New Mexico * * * 23 99
U New Orleans * 119 * * 25
UNC, Chapel Hill 35 74 23 77 *
U Notre Dame 82 62 * 97 105
U Oklahoma 88 63 68 * 78
U Oregon 85 110 * 32 47
U Pennsylvania * 36 83 53 95
U Pittsburgh * 93 7 95 28
U Rhode Island * * * 8 *
U Rochester 39 47 * 101 89
U South Carolina 60 76 * * 84
U Southern California 24 34 16 45 37
U Tennessee, Knoxville * 115 36 78 65
U Texas, Austin 36 37 * 25 34
U Utah 31 72 53 71 *
U Virginia 22 32 38 54 22
U Washington 59 21 71 55 63
U Wisconsin, Madison * 23 61 19 40
U Wisconsin, Milwaukee * 51 80 96 51
U Wyoming * 43 * 3 *
Utah State U * 113 60 13 75
Vanderbilt U 3 33 37 108 27
Virginia Tech 68 67 34 103 85
Washington State U * 109 69 4 2
Washington U, St. Louis 21 106 77 * 20
Wayne State U * 108 * * 9
West Virginia U 62 112 70 111 41
Western Michigan U 58 102 15 115 90
Yale U 14 9 19 5 *

(a) * indicates a research productivity
score of zero for a particular field.

Table 4. Subject Field Rankings for
Ph.D.-Granting Institutions in Economics

 Category Number of
 Ranking Publishing Importance
School SSCI Faculty HHI Index

JEL category A: General economics and teaching
U Virginia 1 4 0.47 0.06
Carnegie Mellon U 2 8 0.18 0.06
U Nebraska, Lincoln 3 6 0.77 0.29
UC Berkeley 4 10 0.30 0.02
Indiana U 5 5 0.80 0.12
MIT 6 6 0.40 0.01
U Oregon 7 6 0.24 0.10
Vanderbilt U 8 5 0.98 0.04
George Mason U 9 12 0.26 0.06
U Chicago 10 2 0.53 0.02
U Texas, Austin 11 5 0.51 0.04
Princeton U 12 5 0.33 0.01
Purdue U 13 6 0.65 0.09
Georgia State U 14 4 0.66 0.05
Harvard U 15 9 0.24 0.01
New York U 16 2 0.73 0.01
Cornell U 17 3 1.00 0.02
Columbia U 18 3 0.85 0.01
U Michigan 19 4 0.80 0.01
UNC, Chapel Hill 20 6 0.40 0.03

JEL category B. Methodology and history of economic thought
Princeton U 1 9 0.23 0.02
UC Berkeley 2 9 0.30 0.01
George Mason U 3 14 0.38 0.07
New York U 4 4 0.84 0.02
MIT 5 3 0.46 0.01
Columbia U 6 2 1.00 0.01
Harvard U 7 6 0.38 0.00
Yale U 8 3 0.92 0.01
Johns Hopkins U 9 2 1.00 0.02
Duke U 10 6 0.35 0.02
Pennsylvania State U 11 1 1.00 0.02
U Minnesota 12 4 0.43 0.02
U Missouri, Kansas City 13 4 0.37 0.24
U Chicago 14 5 0.33 0.01
U Illinois at Chicago 15 3 0.94 0.02
Georgia State U 16 1 1.00 0.03
Carnegie Mellon U 17 5 0.31 0.01
Colorado State U 18 4 0.53 0.11
UC Davis 19 3 0.52 0.01
U Nebraska, Lincoln 20 2 0.80 0.06

JEL category C: Mathematical and quantitative methods
Yale U 1 20 0.34 0.35
UC San Diego 2 17 0.11 0.30
MIT 3 18 0.18 0.12
Northwestern U 4 18 0.18 0.25
Harvard U 5 19 0.16 0.08
U Wisconsin, Madison 6 16 0.18 0.26
Princeton U 7 24 0.09 0.09
UC Berkeley 8 22 0.13 0.09
New York U 9 21 0.10 0.16
UCLA 10 23 0.12 0.13
U Pennsylvania 11 17 0.13 0.18
U Southern California 12 10 0.18 0.22
Ohio State U 13 16 0.29 0.15
Boston U 14 15 0.24 0.13
California Inst Tech 15 11 0.26 0.25
U Illinois, Urbana 16 18 0.14 0.17
Cornell U 17 13 0.17 0.16
Stanford U 18 19 0.09 0.09
Rice U 19 11 0.18 0.28
Texas A&M U 20 14 0.17 0.27

JEL category D: Microeconomics
UC Berkeley 1 35 0.06 0.17
Princeton U 2 28 0.07 0.15
Harvard U 3 28 0.07 0.10
New York U 4 25 0.08 0.23
MIT 5 21 0.09 0.13
Stanford U 6 25 0.10 0.22
U Chicago 7 24 0.09 0.21
Yale U 8 28 0.07 0.17
UCLA 9 26 0.11 0.17
Northwestern U 10 22 0.11 0.18
California Inst Tech 11 11 0.19 0.42
U Pennsylvania 12 15 0.10 0.21
Ohio State U 13 18 0.14 0.21
U Southern California 14 16 0.18 0.26
Johns Hopkins U 15 9 0.27 0.29
U Minnesota 16 15 0.12 0.26
U Michigan 17 27 0.07 0.11
U Virginia 18 13 0.15 0.20
Boston U 19 17 0.11 0.15
Columbia U 20 19 0.19 0.11

JEL category E. Macroeconomics and monetary policy
Harvard U 1 25 0.08 0.12
Princeton U 2 20 0.12 0.15
UC Berkeley 3 18 0.17 0.11
MIT 4 12 0.24 0.11
Northwestern U 5 10 0.21 0.16
Columbia U 6 15 0.19 0.15
New York U 7 16 0.12 0.13
UCLA 8 15 0.12 0.11
U Michigan 9 19 0.09 0.09
Yale U 10 16 0.18 0.09
Boston U 11 11 0.22 0.13
UC San Diego 12 13 0.25 0.10
Johns Hopkins U 13 7 0.42 0.19
Stanford U 14 11 0.17 0.08
UC Davis 15 13 0.13 0.16
U Minnesota 16 12 0.13 0.16
Ohio State U 17 10 0.30 0.11
U Wisconsin, Madison 18 11 0.18 0.09
U Rochester 19 6 0.26 0.19
Georgetown U 20 12 0.22 0.17

JEL category F: International economics
Princeton U 1 13 0.17 0.12
Harvard U 2 19 0.16 0.09
Columbia U 3 16 0.12 0.22
UC Berkeley 4 16 0.39 0.08
U Wisconsin, Madison 5 9 0.24 0.16
UCLA 6 15 0.22 0.10
U Michigan 7 20 0.15 0.09
UC Davis 8 9 0.46 0.19
Stanford U 9 14 0.35 0.08
U Maryland, College Park 10 7 0.38 0.15
UC Santa Cruz 11 12 0.21 0.24
U Colorado, Boulder 12 13 0.27 0.23
UC San Diego 13 9 0.31 0.08
New York U 14 13 0.26 0.06
U Pennsylvania 15 7 0.40 0.10
U Virginia 16 6 0.35 0.11
U Washington 17 9 0.35 0.18
Georgetown U 18 13 0.13 0.16
Duke U 19 11 0.18 0.11
Vanderbilt U 20 12 0.24 0.12

JEL category G: Financial economics
Harvard U 1 22 0.16 0.15
Princeton U 2 26 0.12 0.11
Carnegie Mellon U 3 19 0.12 0.33
U Chicago 4 14 0.16 0.15
MIT 5 16 0.18 0.07
UC San Diego 6 11 0.26 0.10
UC Berkeley 7 20 0.11 0.04
New York U 8 11 0.16 0.07
Stanford U 9 10 0.18 0.06
Ohio State U 10 11 0.22 0.09
U Illinois, Urbana 11 14 0.21 0.10
Columbia U 12 11 0.26 0.05
Yale U 13 15 0.22 0.04
U Michigan 14 16 0.11 0.04
Duke U 15 9 0.18 0.09
Cornell U 16 11 0.43 0.08
UC Santa Barbara 17 12 0.35 0.15
UCLA 18 17 0.11 0.04
City U of New York (CUNY) 19 15 0.23 0.12
U Wisconsin, Madison 20 7 0.28 0.05

JEL category H: Public economics
U Michigan 1 19 0.24 0.14
MIT 2 14 0.21 0.08
Harvard U 3 17 0.16 0.05
UC Berkeley 4 20 0.19 0.06
U Maryland, College Park 5 11 0.16 0.15
Rice U 6 6 0.32 0.24
Syracuse U 7 18 0.10 0.16
U Kentucky 8 9 0.46 0.31
Columbia U 9 14 0.16 0.07
Michigan State U 10 10 0.45 0.10
Georgia State U 11 15 0.16 0.21
Boston U 12 9 0.28 0.08
Cornell U 13 13 0.13 0.08
Princeton U 14 16 0.13 0.02
Stanford U 15 15 0.14 0.05
UC San Diego 16 11 0.36 0.05
U Wisconsin, Madison 17 10 0.54 0.05
Carnegie Mellon U 18 13 0.18 0.08
U Chicago 19 6 0.29 0.04
U Texas, Austin 20 10 0.29 0.08

JEL category I: Health, education, and welfare
Harvard U 1 15 0.20 0.07
Princeton U 2 11 0.20 0.06
U Michigan 3 18 0.26 0.10
MIT 4 14 0.20 0.05
City U of New York (CUNY) 5 11 0.22 0.17
Cornell U 6 7 0.29 0.09
U Illinois, Chicago 7 9 0.33 0.16
Stanford U 8 9 0.63 0.05
U Pennsylvania 9 7 0.30 0.07
U Maryland, College Park 10 9 0.17 0.08
Johns Hopkins U 11 8 0.32 0.10
Michigan State U 12 10 0.16 0.07
Ohio State U 13 9 0.30 0.06
U Chicago 14 8 0.27 0.04
Boston U 15 7 0.44 0.05
UC Berkeley 16 15 0.12 0.02
Duke U 17 7 0.50 0.07
Yale U 18 10 0.17 0.03
U Wisconsin, Madison 19 6 0.48 0.05
Northwestern U 20 6 0.23 0.04

JEL category J: Labor and demographic economics
MIT 1 19 0.12 0.15
Harvard U 2 17 0.13 0.10
UC Berkeley 3 22 0.23 0.12
Princeton U 4 20 0.14 0.12
U Michigan 5 23 0.08 0.19
Michigan State U 6 13 0.45 0.27
UCLA 7 20 0.09 0.14
U Chicago 8 13 0.13 0.15
U Pennsylvania 9 15 0.16 0.22
Boston U 10 15 0.13 0.18
U Texas, Austin 11 6 0.45 0.23
Yale U 12 18 0.15 0.10
Northwestern U 13 13 0.32 0.11
Stanford U 14 15 0.13 0.10
Brown U 15 11 0.11 0.20
U South Carolina 16 6 0.46 0.60
New York U 17 17 0.11 0.08
City U of New York (CUNY) 18 15 0.13 0.27
U Illinois, Chicago 19 11 0.25 0.27
Syracuse U 20 16 0.12 0.21

JEL category K: Law and economics
UC Berkeley 1 9 0.25 0.02
Harvard U 2 4 0.35 0.01
Vanderbilt U 3 2 0.57 0.07
U Connecticut 4 4 0.45 0.14
UC San Diego 5 2 0.93 0.03
Princeton U 6 8 0.17 0.01
U Chicago 7 4 0.47 0.02
MIT 8 5 0.34 0.01
Florida State U 9 7 0.28 0.06
U Michigan 10 4 0.72 0.01
George Mason U 11 9 0.30 0.04
Boston U 12 4 0.40 0.02
Emory U 13 4 0.42 0.08
SUNY Buffalo 14 2 0.75 0.12
Clemson U 15 3 0.77 0.06
Yale U 16 6 0.29 0.01
U Wisconsin, Madison 17 2 0.65 0.01
Columbia U 18 5 0.24 0.01
U Alabama 19 4 0.32 0.09
Wayne State U 20 2 0.53 0.07

JEL category L: Industrial organization
UC Berkeley 1 26 0.07 0.09
MIT 2 16 0.16 0.09
UCLA 3 20 0.16 0.13
U Chicago 4 17 0.10 0.11
Stanford U 5 20 0.11 0.11
Harvard U 6 19 0.14 0.04
Northwestern U 7 9 0.22 0.09
U Michigan 8 13 0.16 0.05
U Virginia 9 6 0.23 0.10
Boston U 10 15 0.14 0.08
Columbia U 11 7 0.23 0.06
Duke U 12 11 0.21 0.11
U Southern California 13 11 0.55 0.11
UC Davis 14 13 0.14 0.10
U Illinois, Urbana 15 16 0.28 0.09
New York U 16 14 0.14 0.04
Georgetown U 17 12 0.18 0.11
Yale U 18 15 0.15 0.04
U Wisconsin, Madison 19 9 0.18 0.05
Princeton U 20 9 0.16 0.02

JEL category N: Economic history
UC Berkeley 1 8 0.25 0.03
Harvard U 2 10 0.34 0.02
Vanderbilt U 3 7 0.32 0.09
MIT 4 3 0.43 0.02
UC Davis 5 6 0.30 0.08
Stanford U 6 5 0.39 0.03
Princeton U 7 6 0.46 0.01
Rutgers U 8 4 0.35 0.10
U Arizona 9 4 0.33 0.12
UCLA 10 10 0.20 0.02
U Colorado, Boulder 11 4 0.48 0.05
U Illinois, Chicago 12 6 0.56 0.05
Columbia U 13 7 0.28 0.02
Yale U 14 5 0.39 0.01
U Delaware 15 2 0.81 0.13
Northwestern U 16 5 0.32 0.02
U Michigan 17 5 0.47 0.01
Ohio State U 18 6 0.31 0.02
SUNY Binghamton 19 3 0.63 0.11
New York U 20 2 0.52 0.01

JEL category O: Economic development, technological change, and growth
Harvard U 1 22 0.08 0.09
UC Berkeley 2 23 0.12 0.08
UCLA 3 20 0.14 0.11
New York U 4 15 0.17 0.10
MIT 5 13 0.33 0.06
Princeton U 6 16 0.11 0.05
Brown U 7 12 0.20 0.20
Columbia U 8 17 0.19 0.09
Yale U 9 15 0.13 0.06
Cornell U 10 13 0.11 0.11
U Chicago 11 4 0.61 0.06
Stanford U 12 15 0.13 0.05
Duke U 13 11 0.18 0.10
U Minnesota 14 8 0.21 0.11
U Michigan 15 16 0.21 0.04
Northwestern U 16 8 0.28 0.05
Pennsylvania State U 17 11 0.32 0.11
Michigan State U 18 10 0.45 0.07
U Illinois, Urbana 19 14 0.19 0.06
U Maryland, College Park 20 9 0.24 0.06

JEL category P: Economic systems
UC Berkeley 1 5 0.40 0.03
Harvard U 2 7 0.26 0.02
Columbia U 3 9 0.37 0.04
U Maryland, College Park 4 2 0.87 0.06
U Michigan 5 6 0.65 0.03
Arizona State U 6 2 0.92 0.07
U Pittsburgh 7 4 0.34 0.10
UC Davis 8 2 0.66 0.04
U Chicago 9 3 0.63 0.02
Stanford U 10 3 0.44 0.02
Brown U 11 3 0.86 0.04
Princeton U 12 5 0.24 0.01
MIT 13 4 0.65 0.01
City U of New York (CUNY) 14 3 0.38 0.04
Western Michigan U 15 1 1.00 0.20
U Southern California 16 5 0.79 0.02
Brandeis U 17 1 1.00 0.12
UC Irvine 18 6 0.87 0.06
Yale U 19 5 0.28 0.01
U Illinois, Urbana 20 2 0.96 0.02

JEL category Q: Agricultural and natural resource economics
Iowa State U 1 29 0.07 0.36
North Carolina State U 2 24 0.12 0.34
U Wyoming 3 9 0.27 0.35
Harvard U 4 6 0.39 0.02
Yale U 5 6 0.39 0.04
UC Santa Barbara 6 7 0.32 0.14
MIT 7 7 0.21 0.02
U Rhode Island 8 8 0.24 0.76
Georgetown U 9 3 0.95 0.08
SUNY Binghamton 10 4 0.34 0.22
Stanford U 11 9 0.30 0.03
U Colorado, Boulder 12 7 0.22 0.08
Utah State U 13 14 0.15 0.56
RPI 14 3 0.54 0.21
U Connecticut 15 3 0.65 0.14
UC San Diego 16 6 0.30 0.03
Rutgers U 17 1 1.00 0.09
Brown U 18 6 0.22 0.04
U Wisconsin, Madison 19 6 0.31 0.03
Geargia State U 20 5 0.29 0.07

JEL category R: Urban, rural, and regional economics
U Illinois, Chicago 1 5 0.42 0.21
Harvard U 2 11 0.27 0.02
Syracuse U 3 7 0.29 0.14
MIT 4 7 0.21 0.03
Boston College 5 6 0.54 0.13
UC Berkeley 6 6 0.50 0.02
Florida State U 7 11 0.43 0.15
Georgia State U 8 8 0.52 0.13
Wayne State U 9 2 0.60 0.29
Princeton U 10 7 0.38 0.02
UC San Diego 11 8 0.23 0.04
U Connecticut 12 5 0.39 0.18
U Illinois, Urbana 13 5 0.33 0.05
U Colorado, Boulder 14 8 0.18 0.09
SUNY Buffalo 15 2 0.94 0.25
UC Riverside 16 5 0.48 0.12
U Kentucky 17 5 0.29 0.13
Pennsylvania State U 18 2 0.80 0.06
Oklahoma State U 19 3 0.45 0.35
Washington U, St. Louis 20 3 0.51 0.13