Research Productivity in Business and Economics: South Korea, 1990-2016

Jin, Jang C. Article Research Productivity in Business and Economics: South Korea, 1990-2016 East Asian Economic Review (EAER) Provided in Cooperation with: Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIEP), Sejong-si Suggested Citation: Jin, Jang C. (2019) : Research Productivity in Business and Economics: South Korea, 1990-2016, East Asian Economic Review (EAER), ISSN 2508-1667, Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIEP), Sejong-si, Vol. 23, Iss. 1, pp. 89-107, https://doi.org/10.11644/KIEP.EAER.2019.23.1.357 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/316553 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ PISSN 2508-1640 EISSN 2508-1667 an open access journal East Asian Economic Review vol. 23, no. 1 (March 2019) 89-107 http://dx.doi.org/10.11644/KIEP.EAER.2019.23.1.357 ⓒ Korea Institute for International Economic Policy Research Productivity in Business and Economics: South Korea, 1990-2016* Jang C. Jin† George Mason University Korea [email protected] This paper ranks higher education in Korea based upon research productivity in business and economics disciplines. The number of SCI-level journal articles are tabulated using the Web of Science search engine, over the sample period from 1990 to 2016. The league table shows that many private universities dominate top-tier ranks, which is consistent with the school reputations most commonly cited by the general public in Korea. In contrast, many national universities appear in the second-tier, and their scanty performance in business and economics is in sharp contrast with our earlier findings in which national universities performed well in science and engineering fields (Jin and Kim, 2018). In addition, the ranking order in lower-ranked schools is found to be sensitive to a small change in publications, whereas the publication gap among top-tier schools is relatively large. Finally, unlike our general perception, the size of school does not matter for collaborative research. Some policy implications are discussed as a conclusion. Keywords: Research Productivity, SCI-level Journal Publications, Higher Education, University Ranking, School Competitiveness JEL Classification: A10, A14, A20 I. INTRODUCTION Recently the competitiveness of Korean business schools and economics departments has been changed substantially, but the schools’ reputation, which has traditionally been based on college entrance exams in Korea, seldom changes over time. More specifically, * I have been greatly helped by a number of research assistants—Dan-A Kim in the early stage, Young-Eun Hong and Yoon-Jin Kim in the middle phase, and Go-En Chang in the final stage. I also want to give special thanks to three anonymous referees, each of whom provided me with useful comments and suggestions on earlier versions. ID * I have been greatly helped by a number of research assistants—Dan-A Kim in the early stage, Young-Eun Hong and Yoon-Jin Kim in the middle phase, and Go-En Chang in the final stage. I also want to give special thanks to three anonymous referees, each of whom provided me with useful comments and su g g estions on earlier versions. 90 Jang C. Jin ⓒ Korea Institute for International Economic Policy students, parents, and policy makers in government and business sectors heavily rely on survey-based rankings (e.g. Korean rankings by Joong-Ang Daily Newspaper; Asian rankings by Shanghai Jiao Tong University (ARWU), Times Higher Education (THE), and Quacquarelli Symonds (QS), among others). Such surveys are conducted on several groups of people, including top managers in the business sector and government officials, but the subjective methods of ranking generally have difficulty in avoiding biased perception on school rankings (Butler, 2007, 2010; Dobrota et al., 2016, among others). This bias is largely attributed to the public’s reliance on the past fame of universities, so that the universities top-rated in the past seldom have their reputations altered (Jin and Yu, 2011; Jin and Kim, 2018). This paper thus aims to illuminate the most recent changes in school competitiveness in Korea based upon research productivity in the fields of business and economics. A sample of 100 universities is obtained from the league table of 148 universities in Korea (Appendix in Jin and Kim, 2018). In the 1970s and 1980s most Korean universities were regarded predominately as teaching schools that focused on education rather than research. Especially social science faculties published very little in academic journals until the early 1990s. When the Korean economy began to raise economic openness to world trade in the early 1990s, many business schools and economics departments were also noticed to publish in international refereed journals.1 Although the simultaneous occurrence might have happened by accident, Korea officially embarked on globalization in the mid-1990s when the Korean government joined the WTO in 1995 and the OECD in 1996. Its peak time of globalization appeared to be in the early 2000s when the 2002 World Cup Games, jointly held in Korea and Japan, was the momentum to change the Korean society in many different aspects (Jin and Cho, 2015). One of the significant changes at the time was the international co-authorship in publications that has been common practice in Korea ever since. Many Korean scholars in the U.S. and European countries also returned to their home country Korea with sizeable publications accumulated overseas, and their spillover effect on academic research played an important role in the development of academic research in Korea as well (Jin, 2015). Figure 1 shows publications in SCI-level journals over the period 1990-2016 for business and economics fields. Academic research appears to be very low in the early 1 It should be noted that science and engineering faculties published in international refereed journals even earlier. Research Productivity in Business and Economics: South Korea, 1990-2016 91 ⓒ 2019 East Asian Economic Review 1990s, which is consistent with the findings in the first Asian ranking (Jin and Yau, 1999) in which Seoul National University, for example, was at the bottom of the ranking in Asian top-10. However, journal publications have increased noticeably since the early 2000s. In particular, many Korean universities tended to do more collaborative research with overseas scholars and increased publications in international refereed journals significantly in the 2010s. One small drop is observed for the year of 2000, which is largely ascribed to the Korea’s financial crisis of 1997/98. This negative impact on higher education in 2000 well explains the 2-3 years of lag in academic publication. Figure 1. Total Publications in Business and Economics: South Korea, 1990-2016 Note: The value on the vertical axis indicates the number of SSCI journal publications in business and economics nationwide. SSCI journal publications were obtained from the Web of Science (October 2017). 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 92 Jang C. Jin ⓒ Korea Institute for International Economic Policy II. METHODOLOGY Journal publications were counted for each university in Korea using the Web of Science (October 2017), one of the most widely recognized academic search engine. The Web of Science includes journal articles, books, book chapters, conference proceedings, and so forth. Among these, quality journals were selected that are cited in the following three indexes: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI), Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI). Most business and economics related articles appeared in SSCI journals.2 There are 437 universities and colleges in South Korea (Wikipedia, 2017). To compile the list of quality universities, we first determined the best 100 universities as listed in Jin and Kim (2018). For each university, we searched for SCI-level publications over the period 1990-2016 for economics and business disciplines only. The business discipline includes four sub-fields: business finance, general business, management, and operation research (OR) management science. The general business area then subsequently includes marketing, international or global business, and accounting; management includes production management, personnel management, hotel management, and management information system (MIS); and the sub-fields of finance and OR management science are rather specific as their names explain. Based on total SCI-level publications, we further computed per capita publications using the number of full-time faculty obtained from each school’s website (as of November 2017). Many different faculty categories were found, e.g. adjunct faculties, part-time instructors or lecturers, emeritus professors, and so forth; all were not counted since they are not full-time. However, short-term visiting professors and scholars were counted here, since many of them are assigned to teach and research, and any research 2 It would have been desirable to differentiate quality journals further using the ‘impact factors’ that were commonly used as quality weights in the literature (e.g. Laband and Piette, 1994 and Conroy et al., 1995, among others, for economics journals); the impact factors were originally designed to compute citations within a discipline, and hence unifying the journal quality measures across disciplines is a formidable task. In addition, the number of pages were not counted although the length of journal articles varied. For the case of multi-authors, each co-author’s contribution was not discounted. More weights were not given to the first or corresponding authors either. If one paper was coauthored within the same university, the paper was counted as one publication for their affiliated university. But if coauthors were from different universities, each university deserved one publication each, as designed by the Web of Science. Research Productivity in Business and Economics: South Korea, 1990-2016 93 ⓒ 2019 East Asian Economic Review publications conducted during her/his visit will be jointly affiliated with the schools that she/he currently visits. This ‘buy’ may have a non-trivial effect on the ranking of some schools in Korea. One difficulty that was encountered in data collection was to determine the exact number of faculty members in business and economics, as business faculties were employed under newly named departments/schools especially in lower-ranked universities. It should also be noted that some business departments were included in the college of social sciences, and the rest of them were in business schools. Furthermore, some economists were affiliated with business schools. For example, the department of international trade consists of faculties in international economics and international business disciplines, so that the former is counted here as economists and the latter as a business field.3 Finally, branch campuses in Korea are independently operated and thus counted separately. III. RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY IN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS Table 1 shows SSCI journal publications for top-40 universities over the period 1990-2016, and the university ranking in this table is based upon research productivity per capita (column 3).4 The last column further computes the average productivity per capita per year. Using these criteria, KAIST ranks in the number one position. The KAIST Business School published a lot, especially in the sub-field of OR management science. Seoul National, Korea U, and Yonsei (the so-called SKY universities) follow in the second, third, and fourth rankings, respectively. These top-tier schools are largely consistent with the general perception on school reputations in Korea. 3 It is pity to find that several lower-ranked universities are in the process of closing down the economics department these days. 4 It should be, however, noted that the number of current faculty members (as of November 2017) was used as a proxy for the average number of faculty members over the past 27 years. Normally, most schools have been growing in terms of students and faculty over time, so that actual number of faculties would have been smaller in the past and thus per capita productivity must be greater than in Table 1. On the other hand, some schools might have inflated productivity because of a reduced faculty size in recent few years (perhaps due to financial/organizational crises). Except for these few changes, we presume that all schools have enlarged their faculty size more or less at a constant rate, and hence the school rankings reported in Table 1 would not change much. We also find little changes in the ranking of toprated schools in Table 3 that uses total publications only. 94 Jang C. Jin ⓒ Korea Institute for International Economic Policy Table 1. Research Productivity in Business and Economics: 1990-2016 Ran k School SSCI Journal # of Faculties per capita Publications per capita p er y ea r 1 KAIST 1623 70 23.19 0.859 2 Seoul National Universit y 1631 102 15.99 0.592 3 Korea Universit y 1628 129 12.62 0.467 4 Yonsei University 1106 104 10.63 0.394 5 Han y an g Universit y 583 83 7.02 0.260 6 K y un g Hee Universit y 583 87 6.70 0.248 7 Sungkyunkwan University 776 123 6.31 0.234 8 So g an g Universit y 473 86 5.50 0.204 9 Ewha Womans Universit y 330 60 5.50 0.204 10 Pusan National University 308 79 3.90 0.144 11 Chun g -an g Universit y 380 98 3.88 0.144 12 A j ou Universit y 260 68 3.82 0.142 13 Inha University 228 61 3.74 0.138 14 Konkuk Universit y 218 73 2.99 0.111 15 Puk y on g National Universit y 173 59 2.93 0.109 16 Chonnam National University 162 56 2.89 0.107 17 Don gg uk Universit y 175 61 2.87 0.106 18 Sun g shin Women's Universit y 48 17 2.82 0.105 19 Gyeongsang National University 98 36 2.72 0.101 20 K y un gp ook National Universit y 184 68 2.71 0.100 21 Hall y m Universit y 91 35 2.60 0.096 22 University of Seoul 153 62 2.47 0.091 23 Se j on g Universit y 175 74 2.36 0.088 24 Yeun g nam Universit y 179 78 2.29 0.085 25 Chungbuk National University 115 53 2.17 0.080 26 Far East Universit y 43 20 2.15 0.080 27 Universit y of Ulsan 101 47 2.15 0.080 28 Chungnam National University 109 51 2.14 0.079 29 In j e Universit y 56 27 2.07 0.077 30 Sookm y un g Women’s Universit y 80 39 2.05 0.076 31 Chonbuk National University 96 47 2.04 0.076 32 Hon g ik Universit y 135 67 2.01 0.075 33 Kon gj u National Universit y 41 21 1.95 0.072 34 Changwon National University 66 35 1.89 0.070 35 K y un g sun g Universit y 80 43 1.86 0.069 36 Kwan g woon Universit y 56 31 1.81 0.067 37 Kangwon National University 95 53 1.79 0.066 38 Soon g sil Universit y 129 73 1.77 0.065 39 Incheon National Universit y 90 51 1.76 0.065 40 Hoseo University 60 34 1.76 0.065 Note: SSCI journal publications were obtained from the Web of Science (October 2017). The number of full-time faculty members in business and economics disciplines were taken from each school’s website (as of November 2017). Research Productivity in Business and Economics: South Korea, 1990-2016 95 ⓒ 2019 East Asian Economic Review It is also interesting to find that many private universities dominate the top-tier ranks in Korea. KU (3rd), Yonsei (4th), Hanyang (5th), Kyunghee (6th), SKK (7th), Sogang (8th), Ewha (9th) are in this category. This also follows the conventional view of the school reputation most commonly cited in public discourse. In contrast, many national universities, except KAIST and SNU, appear in the second-tier, and their scanty performance in business and economics is in sharp contrast with the findings in Jin and Kim (2018) in which many national universities performed well in science and engineering fields. Another interesting result from this league table is that the ranking order of lower-ranked schools is found to be sensitive to small changes in publication, whereas the publication gap among top-tier schools is relatively large. In other words, school ranking would be changed noticeably if a star professor moved into a lower-ranked school; but one or two superstars may not be good enough to alter the ranking of top-tier schools. It should be noted that the per capita ranking order used here is generally consistent with the one based on total publications (column 1). Large publications in total, which are mostly proportional to the large number of faculty members, normally rank high. A few exceptions are the small universities like Sungshin Women’s University (18th), which are small but have strong business and economics departments. By contrast, large universities such as Hongik (32nd), Soongsil (38th), Kookmin (44th), Dankook (45th), and Keimyung (57th), among others, published a great deal in total but their per capita productivity appeared to be relatively low. The results appear to be at odds with our general perception that the large faculty size with diverse specialties may have a synergy effect that enhances collaborative research further. IV. CONCENTRATION RATIOS Table 2 computes the concentration ratios (CRs) based on total publications. The CRs show how much percentage of publications are concentrated by how many leading schools (Hirsch et al., 1984). The CR up to the kth leading schools is computed as: CR(k) = sum of pubi / total pub, where i = 1, 2, … k, and k = number of leading schools. Unlike per capita publications in Table 1, the school rankings based on total publications are slightly changed in order: 96 Jang C. Jin ⓒ Korea Institute for International Economic Policy SNU(1st), KU(2nd), KAIST(3rd), Yonsei(4th), SKK(5th), Hanyang(6th), Kyung Hee(6th), Sogan(8th), Chung-ang(9th), Ewha(10th), and so forth (column 1 in Table 1). The concentration ratio only by SNU appears to be 11%. More importantly, about half of total publications are produced by top-5 leading schools (47%), about two-thirds by top-10 schools (64%), and about three-quarters by top-20 schools (78%). Accordingly, the CR increases at a decreasing rate, which is similar to a typical production function. In other words, top-tier schools dominate the publications in business and economics, and the increment of publications diminishes in lower-ranked schools. Table 2. Publications among Leading Schools Concentration Ratios Percentage (%) CR(1) 0.11 CR(5) 0.47 CR(10) 0.64 CR(20) 0.78 Note: The value in parentheses indicates the number of leading schools. V. SCHOOL COMPETITIVENESS OVER TIME Table 3 further shows total publications for sub-periods, in which changes in school competitiveness can be identified over time. Although the ranking of top-10 universities remains unaltered except for a few schools, many lower ranked schools are dramatically changed over time. For example, many national universities drop in the 2000s, while some private universities are rising up for the most recent decades (20072016). In addition, top-tier schools increased journal publications about 5 times in the 2000s as compared to their research outputs in the 1990s, and about double in the most recent ten years (2007-2016). The ratios tended to be even higher for lower-ranked schools since their initial publications in the 1990’s were relatively small. For the most recent ten years, about half of the top-36 schools had more than two-hundred percent increase. The results suggest that, as Korea entered into the 21st century, universities became more aware of the importance of academic research. This is largely due to the sweep of globalization in higher education (e.g. Lindblad and Lindblad, 2009; Findlay Research Productivity in Business and Economics: South Korea, 1990-2016 103 ⓒ 2019 East Asian Economic Review Table 7. Alternative Ranking by Current Faculty Members in Top-10 Economics Departments Ran k School SSCI Journal # of Faculties per capita Publications 1 Korea U 394 32 12.31 2 Seoul National 448 39 11.49 3 SK K 329 34 9.68 4 Yonsei 308 35 8.80 5 Kyung Hee 172 23 7.48 6 Chung-ang 126 21 6.00 7 Kookmin 43 8 5.38 8 So g an g 149 33 4.52 9 Han y an g 100 23 4.35 10 U of Seoul 68 17 4.00 Note: Economics departments only (as of December 2017). The number of faculty members and SSCI journal publications differ from those in Table 4 since faculty members are counted here for the economics department only. Table 4, however, counted for all economists campus wide. Table 8. Concentration Ratios Concentration Ratios Korea University Seoul Nat’l University Hangyang University University of Seoul ( 1st ) ( 2nd ) (9th) (10th) CR(1) 12.4% 10.7% 23.0% 16.2% CR(5) 40.6% 41.9% 62.0% 57.4% CR(10) 63.5% 61.6% 81.0% 91.2% CR ( 20 ) 88.8% 83.7% 100.0% 100.0% Note: The value in parentheses indicates the number of leading scholars within a department. Table 8 further computes concentration ratios (CRs) to see the approximate distribution of researchers. CRs indicate how much publications are concentrated by how many leading scholars within a department. For the top-two universities, KU (1st) and SNU (2nd), concentration ratios are very similar to each other. The distribution pattern between research-active and inactive faculties is nearly identical in the top-two schools although the number of faculty members are slightly different. However, this distribution pattern differs from the one in lower-ranked universities. For Hanyang (9th) and U of Seoul (10th), best-5 faculty members dominate in departmental publications, and best-10 faculty members publish about 80-90% of departmental publications. This is a good indication that a small number of prolific faculties determine the lower-ranked schools, while top schools attribute their success to the efforts of many productive members. 104 Jang C. Jin ⓒ Korea Institute for International Economic Policy IX. DISCUSSION The research productivity that is adjusted for school size shows significant changes in school rankings. Especially, research schools that are dedicated to academic research are observed to rank relatively high. Their achievement is mainly attributed to a drive of selective recruitment exercises. More specifically, the universities like KAIST and Postech recruited research-active scholars from the very beginning, and hence the quality of research could be enhanced. Only prolific faculty could pass stringent tenure reviews and get promoted, so that the ‘publish or perish’ principle seemed to be rigorously applied (see also Jin and Kim, 2018). Their success story can be our role model for the future development of higher education in Korea. In the league table, we also find that lower-ranked schools would be elastic with respect to a small change in publications, but top-tier schools are relatively inelastic even with a large increase in publications. In other words, if a productive scholar moves in, the school ranking may rise up significantly in lower ranks. However, firsttier schools may need to recruit several superstars to increase their ranking to one or two positions (see also Jin, 2015). Another finding is that the research productivity of most schools in the first-tier is more or less evenly distributed across faculty members, so that the average productivity may not be significantly affected when one or two faculty members retire. However, some other schools have a skewed distribution toward a small number of prolific scholars, and hence if star professors move out, it may cause a large impact on the average productivity. A few cases were observed in the first-tier schools that were highly ranked a decade ago but dropped to the second-tier recently. To maintain the school reputation, it is thus important to keep the research productivity to be distributed evenly among faculty members. In addition, we generally believed that big schools would facilitate more collaborative research. If there are more faculties with diverse specialties, more collaborations are expected to achieve in large schools. However, the results are different in reality. Larger schools not necessarily publish more. Unlike natural science and engineering schools, a smaller number of co-authorships were found in the social science disciplines including business and economics. In fact, we found many single-authored papers. Collaborative research may not be common practice in business and economics disciplines. Many big schools in our sample were found to rank downward because of Research Productivity in Business and Economics: South Korea, 1990-2016 105 ⓒ 2019 East Asian Economic Review their large faculty size, whereas smaller schools with prolific scholars ranked in a higher position. Finally, the inclusion of foreign scholars in the departments/schools will internationalize both students and faculties, so that the departments/schools will be more competitive in international educational markets. International collaboration would be active more than before. Foreign scholars also play an important role in upgrading to an international standard. For example, faculty is encouraged to publish in international refereed journals rather than in domestic Korean journals; tenure reviews and promotions may require more strict regulations than before. Faculties and students will also be globalized in many other aspects. This is similar to the case of foreign direct investment (FDI) that enhances domestic technology in developing countries. First few years may be awkward to domestic workers, but they learn foreign technology quickly and can be independent in a few years. The consequences are expected to be similar in academics. These days, domestic sports teams in Korea recruit foreign players, as well as coaches from overseas; foreign entertainers often appear on domestic TV shows; domestic companies hire foreign talents regardless of race or color. Why not in academics? Why not opening up our job offerings equally to foreign candidates? We are not only talking about the recruitment of Korean-American or foreign-born Korean scholars, but we also refer to the recruitment of prolific foreigners from around the world. In this case, one problem we may confront would be the language barrier. For example, faculty meetings could be done in a bilingual as a first step. If faculty meetings are conducted in both English and Korean, it sounds like we may miss a full discussion of important agenda, but the meetings will soon be more formalized and upgraded to an international standard. Gains will be more than loss. REFERENCES Butler, D. 2007. “Academics Strike Back at Spurious Rankings,” Nature, vol. 447, no. 7144, pp. 514-515. _______. 2010. “University Rankings Smarten Up,” Nature, vol. 464, no. 7285, pp. 16-17. Conroy, M. E., Dusansky, R., Drukker, D. and A. Kildegaard. 1995. “The Productivity of Economics Departments in the U.S.: Publications in the Core Journals,” Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 1966-1971. 106 Jang C. Jin ⓒ Korea Institute for International Economic Policy Coupè, T. 2003. “Revealed Performances: Worldwide Rankings of Economists and Economics Departments: 1990-2000,” Journal of the European Economic Association, vol. 1, no. 6, pp. 1309-1345. Dobrota, M., Bulajic, M., Bornmann, L. and V. Jeremic. 2016. “A New Approach to the QS University Ranking Using the Composite I-distance Indicator: Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analyses,” Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 200-211. Dusansky, R. and C. J. Vernon. 1998. “Rankings of U.S. Economics Departments,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 157-170. Feinberg, R. M., Griliches, Z. and L. Einav. 1998. “Ranking Economics Departments,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 231-235. Findlay, C. and W. G. Tierney. 2010. Globalisation and Tertiary Education in the Asia-Pacific: The Changing Nature of a Dynamic Market. New Jersey: World Scientific Publishing Co. Graves, P. E., Marchand, J. R. and R. Thompson. 1982. “Economics Departmental Rankings: Research Incentives, Constraints, and Efficiency,” American Economic Review, vol. 72, no. 5, pp. 1131-1141. Hirsch, B. T., Austin, R., Brooks, J. and J. B. Moore. 1984. “Economics Departmental Rankings: Comment,” American Economic Review, vol. 74, no. 4, pp. 822-826. Hogan, T. D. 1984. “Economics Departmental Rankings: Comment,” American Economic Review, vol. 74, no. 4, pp. 827-833. Jin, J. C. 2005. “Economics Departmental Rankings in Korea: A Decade Later,” Journal of Asian Economics, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 223-237. ________. 2009. “Asian University Rankings in International and Development Economics: An Application of Zipf’s Law,” Review of International Economics, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 137143. ________. 2009. “Economic Research and Economic Growth: Evidence from East Asian Economies,” Journal of Asian Economics, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 150-155. ________. 2015. “Internationalization, Deregulation and the Extension of Higher Education in Korea: A Further Note,” International Journal of Higher Education, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 156160. Jin, J. C. and J. R. Cho. 2015. “Faculty Salary at Korean Universities: Does Publication Matter?,” Asia Pacific Education Review, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 343-351. Jin, J. C. and J. H. Hong. 2008. “East Asian Rankings of Economics Departments,” Journal of Asian Economics, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 74-82. Jin, J. C. and D. A. Kim. 2018. The Ranking of Higher Education in Korea: Recent Changes in School Competitiveness and Research Productivity. GMU Korea Working Paper. Jin, J. C. and L. Yau. 1999. “Research Productivity of the Economics Profession in East Asia,” Economic Inquiry, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 706-710. Jin, J. C. and E. S. H. Yu. 2011. “World Ranking of Real Estate Research: Recent Changes in School Competitiveness and Research Institutions,” Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 229-246. Kalaitzidakis, P., Mamuneas, T. P. and T. Stengos. 1999. “European Economics: An Analysis Based on Publications in the Core Journals,” European Economic Review, vol. 43, no. 4-6, pp. 1150-1168. Research Productivity in Business and Economics: South Korea, 1990-2016 107 ⓒ 2019 East Asian Economic Review ________. 2003. “Rankings of Academic Journals and Institutions in Economics,” Journal of the European Economic Association, vol. 1, no. 6, pp. 1346-1366. Korea Joong-Ang Daily. 2016. Korean University Rankings. <http://univ.joongang.co.kr/univ ersity/univReport.asp> (accessed September 2, 2018) (in Korean). Laband, D. N. and M. J. Piette. 1994. “The Relative Impacts of Economics Journals: 19701990,” Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 640-666. Lindblad, S. and R. F. Lindblad. 2009. “Transnational Governance of Higher Education: On Globalization and International University Ranking Lists,” Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, vol. 108, no. 2, pp. 180-202. Lubrano, M., Bauwens, L., Kirman, A. and C. Protopopescu. 2003. “Ranking Economics Departments in Europe: A Statistical Approach,” Journal of the European Economic Association, vol. 1, no. 6, pp. 1367-1401. Quacquarelli Symonds (QS). 2016. University Rankings Asia. <https://www.topuniversities. com/university-rankings/asian-university-rankings/2016> (accessed September 2, 2018). Scott, L. C. and P. M. Mitias. 1996. “Trends in Rankings of Economics Departments in the U.S.: An Update,” Economic Inquiry, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 378-400. Shanghai Jiao Tong University. 2016. Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU). <http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2016.html> (accessed September 2, 2018). Times Higher Education (THE) Magazine. 2016. World University Rankings. <https://www. timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2016/world-ranking#!/page/0/lengt h/25/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats.> (accessed September 2, 2018). Web of Science. 2017. Thomson Reuters Web of Science (Formerly ISI Web of Knowledge). Retrieved from <http://thomsonreuters.com/thomson-reuters-web-of-science/.February> (accessed September 2, 2017). Wikipedia. 2017. List of Universities and Colleges in South Korea, <https://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/List_of_universities_and_colleges_in_South_Korea> (accessed September 2, 2018). Yu, E. S. H., Jin, J. C. and L. Jin. 2016. Evolution and Formation of World’s Premier Research Centers: A Comparative Study Based on Publications in Science. City University of Hong Kong Working Paper. First version received on 30 October 2018 Peer-reviewed version received on 2 December 2018 Final version accepted on 21 December 2018 © 2019 EAER articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author (s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license.