Applied Economics Letters
ISSN: 1350-4851 (Print) 1466-4291 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rael20
Ranking economics departments in the US South:
an update
Franklin G. Mixon Jr. & Kamal P. Upadhyaya
To cite this article: Franklin G. Mixon Jr. & Kamal P. Upadhyaya (2016): Ranking
economics departments in the US South: an update, Applied Economics Letters, DOI:
10.1080/13504851.2016.1145344
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2016.1145344
Published online: 15 Feb 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 26
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rael20
Download by: [Auburn University Libraries]
Date: 23 February 2016, At: 11:56
APPLIED ECONOMICS LETTERS, 2016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2016.1145344
Ranking economics departments in the US South: an update
Franklin G. Mixon, Jr.a and Kamal P. Upadhyayab
Downloaded by [Auburn University Libraries] at 11:56 23 February 2016
a
Center for Economic Education, Columbus State University, Columbus, GA, USA; bDepartment of Economics, University of New Haven,
West Haven, CT, USA
ABSTRACT
KEYWORDS
This study provides an update to Mixon and Upadhyaya’s (2001) ranking of Southern economics
departments using research output indexed in EconLit. Ranking results from a ‘core’ (i.e. the top
five faculty researchers) of each institution’s economics department reveal that Vanderbilt
University, George Mason University, Johns Hopkins University, the University of Maryland and
Georgia State University currently maintain the top five economics departments, respectively, in
the US South. Relatedly, the five institutions rising the most from Mixon and Upadhyaya (2001)
are Tulane University, Georgia State University, University of Texas–Dallas, Rice University and
Florida International University, respectively.
Economics department
rankings; faculty
publications; sociology of
economics; scientometrics
I. Introduction and background
In their study of economics faculty representation on
the editorial boards of top journals, Gibbons and
Fish (1991) point out that the ranking of faculty
research productivity in economics is as important
to academic economists as the ESPN football poll is
to coaches, players, students and university alumni.
Given the proliferation of ranking studies in the
academic literature over the past 15 years, that sentiment is at least as true today, if not more so, as it
was when Mixon and Upadhyaya (2001) reiterated it
in their study of faculty productivity across economics departments at colleges and universities in the US
South. That proliferation has brought with it all sorts
of interesting new approaches, including the use of
prestigious medals and awards (see Mixon and
Upadhyaya 2012) in order to rank economics
departments and economists. Even with these
advancements, two traditional methods, using either
citations-based data or publications-based data, or
even a combination of the two, persist as staples in
this particular genre.1
This study re-examines the approach to ranking
economics departments in the US South using
JEL CLASSIFICATION
A14; A10
publications- or quantity-based data provided by
Mixon and Upadhyaya (2001). As these authors
suggest, most economics departments are recognized
by the work being done by a ‘core’ of their members.
As such, the update of Mixon and Upadhyaya (2001)
that is provided in this study examines, as is done in
the previous study, the academic output of the top
five researchers affiliated with the economics departments at colleges and universities in the US South.
The process for doing so is described in greater
detail in the following section which also includes
the updated ranking results.
II. Ranking Southern economics departments
A number of additional particulars for ranking
Southern economics departments deserve greater
focus before discussing the updated rankings provided in this study. First, following Mixon and
Upadhyaya (2001), the set of institutions includes
all those US colleges and universities located in the
South and also categorized by US News & World
Report’s America’s Best Colleges 2016 as ‘national’
institutions.2 This set includes a list of 88 colleges
CONTACT Franklin G. Mixon
[email protected]
1
The former approach has historically employed citations data from the Web of Science (formerly referred to as the Social Sciences Citation Index). More
recently, however, citations data obtained from Google Scholar have also become a popular basis for measuring academic productivity. See Mixon and
Upadhyaya (2001) for discussion of the pros and cons of each approach.
2
Following Mixon and Upadhyaya (2001), the states comprising the US South include Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia.
© 2016 Taylor & Francis
Downloaded by [Auburn University Libraries] at 11:56 23 February 2016
2
F. G. MIXON AND K. P. UPADHYAYA
and universities.3 Second, this study credits, as does
Mixon and Upadhyaya (2001), an economist’s current affiliation for work published by him or her
over the course of his or her academic career.4
Following Mixon and Upadhyaya (2001), Table 1
presents the ranking based on the EconLit-recorded
scholarly output score across the ‘top five researchers’ for each college or university in the sample.5
Also included in Table 1 is each department’s ranking in Mixon and Upadhyaya (2001), as well as its
ranking (if any) in older studies by Berger and Scott
(1990), Gerrity and McKenzie (1978) and Niemi
(1975) that also rank economics departments in the
US South. As shown in Table 1, with the exception
of the University of New Orleans, and, to a lesser
extent, the University of Oklahoma and Oklahoma
State University, many of the departments ranked
relatively highly in these older studies also perform
relatively well in the current one.6 Even with the
general overlap with previous studies, the ranking
presented in Table 1 offers some notable differences
in terms of individual positions.
Unlike in Mixon and Upadhyaya (2001), the top
economics department in the US South resides at
Vanderbilt University. The top five producers at
Vanderbilt University have, on average, produced
171.4 EconLit contributions. This score is 4.4 contributions greater than the average of 167.0 for
George Mason University, the formerly top-ranked
institution (see Mixon and Upadhyaya 2001) that is
now the second-most productive economics department in the US South. Rounding out the top five
departments are those at Johns Hopkins University,
the University of Maryland and Georgia State
University with EconLit score averages of 154.8,
3
143.2 and 138.2, respectively. The first two of
these were ranked fourth and second, respectively,
in Mixon and Upadhyaya (2001), while the third,
Georgia State University, climbed 22 positions from
the Mixon and Upadhyaya (2001) ranking into the
fifth spot in the current study. Interestingly, the
percentage of senior faculty (i.e. full professors)
among the schools in the top five ranges from
about 51% to 65%. This range tightens to 60–65%
if institutions occupying the top four positions are
considered, suggesting that a senior–junior faculty
ratio of about 1.50–1.86 maximizes departmental
productivity.7 Lastly, among the other schools
newly ranked among the top 10 in Table 1,
Clemson University and the University of Virginia
each climbed more than eight spots from their
positions in Mixon and Upadhyaya (2001) to
occupy the eighth and seventh positions, respectively, in this study.8 Falling out the top 10 (based
on Mixon and Upadhyaya 2001) are the University
of Florida, now ranked fourteenth, the University of
North Carolina, now ranked at 22, Auburn
University, now ranked at 31, and the University
of Georgia, which is now ranked thirty-sixth.
The five biggest risers (from the ranking in Mixon
and Upadhyaya 2001) are listed in Table 2. Leading
that group is Tulane University, which is now
ranked at 17 (see Table 1) after rising 25 spots
from its position in Mixon and Upadhyaya (2001).
Tulane University’s success is quite remarkable given
the setbacks dealt to the institution during and in the
aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.9 The increase in
relative productivity exhibited by the economics
department at Georgia State University is noteworthy, as are the relative gains made by two
The set of institutions examined here contains 19 more colleges and universities than the 69 considered in Mixon and Upadhyaya (2001). This increase is the
result of US News & World Report’s reclassification of a number of colleges and universities that were classified as ‘regional’ institutions by the periodical in
1998.
4
Mixon and Upadhyaya (2001) examine the research productivity of the American Economic Association (AEA) members of each institution. That approach,
which made use of the American Economic Association Survey of Members publication from December 1997, was borne mainly of necessity given that the
Internet was not as widely used then as it is today. Of course, the existence of departmental webpages provides us with easy access to the names of the
faculty members in each of the 88 economics departments in the US South.
5
For economics departments with fewer than five faculty, the EconLit scores of the existing faculty are summed and then divided by 5 for a top-five mean
score.
6
The University of New Orleans, which ranked twentieth in studies by Gerrity and McKenzie (1978) and Niemi (1975), occupies the sixty-sixth position in the
current study. That position is, however, nine spots higher than its ranking in Mixon and Upadhyaya (2001). The remaining departments – the University of
Oklahoma and Oklahoma State University – occupy spots (i.e. 45 and 43, respectively) similar to the ones they held in Mixon and Upadhyaya (2001).
7
Informal analysis of the top five suggests that the mix of junior professors is less relevant than is the mix of overall faculty. For instance, junior faculty at
both Vanderbilt University and Johns Hopkins University consist mainly of assistant professors, while those at George Mason University, the University of
Maryland and Georgia State University are largely associate professors.
8
Interestingly, just under 50%of the faculty in each of these two departments are senior scholars (i.e. full professors).
9
See http://renewal.tulane.edu/background.shtml. Examination of the top producers at Tulane University reveals that its ascension from Mixon and
Upadhyaya (2001) is largely the result of the post-2009 hiring of a few senior scholars, mixed with the successes of both junior and senior faculty
hired by Tulane before Hurricane Katrina.
APPLIED ECONOMICS LETTERS
3
Table 1. Ranking of Southern economics departments using top five average score.
M–U ranking
Downloaded by [Auburn University Libraries] at 11:56 23 February 2016
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
55
56
57
58
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
Older rankings
College/University
Econ Lit score
M–U rank
ΔM–U
B–S rank
Vanderbilt University
George Mason University
Johns Hopkins University
University of Maryland
Georgia State University
Duke University
University of Virginia
Clemson University
University of Texas
University of Texas–San Antonio
Emory University
Florida State University
University of Texas–Dallas
University of Florida
Rice University
Texas A&M University
Tulane University
Southern Methodist University
University of Delaware
North Carolina State University
University of South Carolina
University of North Carolina
College of William and Mary
West Virginia University
University of North Carolina–Greensboro
University of Kentucky
Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State U
University of Houston
Florida International University
University of Tennessee
Auburn University
Louisiana State University
University of Maryland–Baltimore County
University of Alabama
University of Miami
University of Georgia
University of Mississippi
Georgia Institute of Technology
University of Arkansas
Texas Tech University
Middle Tennessee State University
Baylor University
Oklahoma State University
Florida Atlantic University
University of Oklahoma
University of Texas–Arlington
University of Central Florida
University of North Texas
Old Dominion University
University of Tulsa
East Carolina University
Virginia Commonwealth University
University of Memphis
Wake Forest University
Texas Christian University
University of South Florida
University of Texas–El Paso
Georgia Southern University
Louisiana Tech University
University of North Carolina–Charlotte
University of Louisville
Sam Houston State University
North Carolina A&T State University
University of Southern Mississippi
Tennessee State University
University of New Orleans
Texas A&M University–Corpus Christi
Mississippi State University
University of West Florida
University of Louisiana–Lafayette
171.4
167.0
154.8
143.2
138.2
137.2
132.6
129.8
119.6
119.2
114.0
108.4
95.4
95.0
94.2
88.8
87.0
86.6
86.4
82.8
81.8
78.6
76.6
72.6
71.2
68.6
68.4
66.6
65.0
62.4
62.0
56.2
56.2
55.2
51.8
51.0
49.2
48.0
43.0
39.0
37.4
35.8
35.6
35.4
35.2
35.0
34.8
34.6
34.4
34.2
33.6
32.2
31.6
31.6
31.4
30.4
30.2
29.8
29.8
28.2
26.4
24.2
21.4
18.2
16.8
14.6
13.6
13.4
8.0
7.8
10
1
4
2
27
3
16
18
8
+9
−1
+1
−2
+22
−3
+9
+10
−1
13
20
12
32
6
31
22
41
25
14
22
17
7
11
34
19
26
30
28
44
13
9
15
46
21
28
5
32
24
42
36
45
56
40
58
47
42
52
54
59
59
+10
+1
+20
−7
+17
+7
+25
+8
−4
+3
−3
−14
−11
+11
−5
+1
+4
+1
+16
−16
−21
−16
+15
−12
−6
−30
−4
−13
+4
−3
+5
+15
−2
+15
+3
−3
+6
+7
+11
+10
47
38
36
55
34
−3
−13
−15
+2
−20
59
+4
50
−6
38
59
50
−19
+1
+9
53
−7
59
−2
G–M rank
N rank
4, 4
11, 11
18, 19
2, 2
3, 3
19, 18
8, 8
3, 2
5, 8
14, 13
7, 9
5, 5
9, 12
12, 7
6, 6
17, 14
10, 5
6, 7
16, 16
2, 1
7, 6
12, 10
13, 16
17, 17
8, 10
1, 3
16, 17
1, 1
11, 11
12, 15
4, 4
9, 9
14, 15
14, 14
15, 13
10, 12
11
3
2
1
18
9
5
19
6
15
8
18
12
10
7
4
14
17
19, 18
20, 19
-, 20
20, 20
(Continued )
4
F. G. MIXON AND K. P. UPADHYAYA
Table 1. (Continued).
M–U ranking
Rank
Downloaded by [Auburn University Libraries] at 11:56 23 February 2016
71
72
73
74
75
76
76
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
88
College/University
Econ Lit score
University of Arkansas–Little Rock
East Tennessee State University
Morgan State University
University of Alabama–Birmingham
University of Alabama–Huntsville
University of South Alabama
Jackson State University
Texas A&M University–Commerce
Lamar University
South Carolina State University
Clark Atlanta University
Florida A&M University
Nova Southeastern University
Barry University
Bowie State University
Florida Institute of Technology
Texas Southern University
Texas Women’s University
7.4
6.8
6.6
6.2
6.0
5.8
5.6
5.0
4.8
3.8
2.6
2.4
2.4
1.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.0
Older rankings
M–U rank
ΔM–U
49
57
−13
−6
59
−5
59
−6
59
−7
59
59
59
−8
−9
−10
B–S rank
G–M rank
N rank
ΔM–U represents the change in ranking of each institution from Mixon and Upadhyaya (2001) to the current study, adjusted for the difference in the number
of institutions examined between the two studies.
M–U = Mixon and Upadhyaya (2001); B–S = Berger and Scott (1990); G–M = Gerrity and McKenzie (1978); N = Niemi (1975).
Table 2. Five biggest movers using top five average score.
Rank College/University
1
Tulane University
2
Georgia State
University
3
University of Texas–
Dallas
4
Rice University
5
Florida International
University
+Δ Rank
College/University
+25 1 University of Georgia
+22 2 Auburn University
−Δ
−30
−21
+20
3
−20
+17
4
+16
5
University of South
Florida
University of Southern
Mississippi
Louisiana State
University
University of Tennessee
−19
−16
−16
+Δ and −Δ represent the change in ranking of each institution from Mixon
and Upadhyaya (2001) to the current study, adjusted for the difference in
the number of institutions examined between the two studies.
Texas-based universities, University of Texas–Dallas
and Rice University.10 While Rice University climbs
17 spots from its position in Mixon and Upadhyaya
(2001) to occupy the fifteenth spot in the current
study, the University of Texas–Dallas rises 20 positions to sit in the thirteenth position in Table 1.
Rounding out the five biggest risers is the economics
department at Florida International University,
which jumps 16 spots to now rank among the top
30 economics departments in the US South.11
Table 2 also lists the five biggest drops (including ties) from the ranking in Mixon and
Upadhyaya (2001). Leading that group is the
University of Georgia, which has lost a number
10
of productive senior faculty since Mixon and
Upadhyaya (2001). Examination of Georgia’s current faculty roster reveals that only about onethird of its faculty falls into the senior faculty
category, with the remaining group largely dominated by assistant professors. The fact that this
relatively young department currently holds
about the 60th percentile position in the US
South does, however, bode well for the future.
Next, second among this group is Auburn
University, which dropped 21 spots from Mixon
and Upadhyaya (2001) into the thirty-first position
(see Table 1). In addition to losing a number of
senior scholars since Mixon and Upadhyaya
(2001), Auburn University’s doctoral programme
in economics went into a hiatus in the interim
(O’Keefe 2009; Wismar 2010), only to be recently
re-activated. As a result, its department currently
consists mainly of assistant professors with senior
faculty representing only about 20% of the entire
departmental faculty roster. As in the case of the
University of Georgia, Auburn University’s 65th
percentile (approximately) position bodes well for
the future given the youth of its current faculty
roster in economics. Lastly, another major drop
since Mixon and Upadhyaya (2001) listed in
Examination of the top producers at Georgia State University reveals that its economics department’s relatively recent acquisition of a number of senior
scholars played a large role in its relative ascension among Southern economics departments. Junior professors play a substantial role in the University of
Texas–Dallas’ success, which is also largely the result of recent job market acquisitions. Lastly, as in the case of Georgia State University, senior scholars
played a relatively large role in Rice University’s rise. Unlike the Georgia State University case, however, Rice University’s success has been achieved
through more of a mix of earlier-generation entry-level hiring and the recent acquisition of noteworthy senior scholars.
11
Florida International University is ranked 44 in Mixon and Upadhyaya (2001).
APPLIED ECONOMICS LETTERS
Table 2 is that of the University of Southern
Mississippi (USM), which saw its economics
department largely dismantled as a result of a
political battle surrounding budget cuts stemming
from the Great Recession (Stripling 2009). USM’s
current group of economists is a fraction of its pre2009 size (in numerical terms).
Downloaded by [Auburn University Libraries] at 11:56 23 February 2016
III. Concluding remarks
This study provides an update to the ranking of
Southern economics departments that appears in
Mixon and Upadhyaya (2001). More specifically,
research output from a ‘core’ of the economics
departments at colleges and universities in the US
South is used as a basis for ranking these institutions. This approach indicates that the economics
department affiliated with Vanderbilt University is
currently the top-ranked unit in the South, followed
by the economics department at George Mason
University, which was ranked first in Mixon and
Upadhyaya (2001). Rounding out the top five are
Johns Hopkins University, the University of
Maryland and Georgia State University, respectively.
Of these, only the University of Maryland occupied a
top-five spot in Mixon and Upadhyaya (2001).
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the
authors.
5
References
Berger, M. C., and F. A. Scott. 1990. “Changes in U.S. and
Southern Economics Department Rankings over Time.”
Growth and Change 21: 21–31. doi:10.1111/grow.1990.21.
issue-3.
Gerrity, D. M., and R. B. McKenzie. 1978. “The Ranking of
Southern Economics Departments: New Criterion and
Further Evidence.” Southern Economic Journal 45: 608–614.
doi:10.2307/1057690.
Gibbons, J. D., and M. Fish. 1991. “Rankings of Economics
Faculties and Representation on Editorial Boards of Top
Journals.” The Journal of Economic Education 22: 361–372.
doi:10.1080/00220485.1991.10844728.
Mixon Jr., F. G., and K. P. Upadhyaya. 2001. “Ranking
Economics Departments in the U.S. South.” Applied
Economics
Letters
8:
115–119.
doi:10.1080/
13504850150204174.
Mixon Jr., F. G., and K. P. Upadhyaya. 2012. “The Economics
Olympics: Ranking U.S. Economics Departments Based on
Prizes, Medals, and Other Awards.” Southern Economic
Journal 79: 90–96. doi:10.4284/0038-4038-79.1.90.
Niemi Jr., A. W. 1975. “Journal Publication Performance
during 1970–1974: The Relative Output of Southern
Economics Departments.” Southern Economic Journal 42:
97–106. doi:10.2307/1056568.
O’Keefe, B. 2009. “The Man behind 2009’s Biggest
Bank Bust.”Fortune. http://archive.fortune.com/2009/
10/09/news/companies/bobby_lowder.fortune/index.
htm
Stripling, J. 2009. “Cruel Irony.” Inside Higher Ed. www.
insidehighered.com/news/2009/08/14/economics
Wismar, D. 2010. The fall of Bobby Lowder, and the fallout
at Auburn. http://tcf.danwismar.com/ohio-state-buckeyes/
3-buckeye-archive/7274-the-fall-of-bobby-lowder-andthe-fallout-at-auburn.html