Hit papers significantly outperform the citation benchmark for their cohort. A paper qualifies
if it has ≥500 total citations, achieves ≥1.5× the top-1% citation threshold for papers in the
same subfield and year (this is the minimum needed to enter the top 1%, not the average
within it), or reaches the top citation threshold in at least one of its specific research
topics.
Unwilling or Unable to Cheat? Evidence From a Tax Audit Experiment in Denmark
2011721 citationsHenrik Kleven, Claus Thustrup Kreiner et al.profile →
Children and Gender Inequality: Evidence from Denmark
This map shows the geographic impact of Henrik Kleven's research. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by Henrik Kleven with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Henrik Kleven more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Henrik Kleven. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers produced by Henrik Kleven. The network helps show where Henrik Kleven may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Henrik Kleven
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Henrik Kleven.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Henrik Kleven based on the total number of
citations received by their joint publications. Widths of edges
represent the number of papers authors have co-authored together.
Node borders
signify the number of papers an author published with Henrik Kleven. Henrik Kleven is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
All Works
20 of 20 papers shown
1.
Kleven, Henrik, Camille Landais, Johanna Posch, Andreas Steinhauer, & Josef Zweimüller. (2024). Do Family Policies Reduce Gender Inequality? Evidence from 60 Years of Policy Experimentation. American Economic Journal Economic Policy. 16(2). 110–149.23 indexed citations breakdown →
Dwenger, Nadja, Henrik Kleven, Imran Rasul, & Johannes Rincke. (2014). Extrinsic vs Intrinsic Motivations for Tax Compliance. Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment in Germany. Econstor (Econstor).1 indexed citations
10.
Brockmeyer, Anne, Henrik Kleven, Johannes Spinnewijn, & Mazhar Waseem. (2013). PRODUCTION VS REVENUE EFFICIENCY WITH LIMITED TAX CAPACITY: THEORY AND EVIDENCE FROM PAKISTAN. SSRN Electronic Journal.7 indexed citations
11.
Kleven, Henrik, Camille Landais, Emmanuel Saez, & Esben Anton Schultz. (2013). Migration and Wage Effects of Taxing Top Earners: Evidence from the Foreigners' Tax Scheme in Denmark. London School of Economics and Political Science Research Online (London School of Economics and Political Science).4 indexed citations
12.
Kleven, Henrik & Mazhar Waseem. (2013). Using Notches to Uncover Optimization Frictions and Structural Elasticities: Theory and Evidence from Pakistan*. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 128(2). 669–723.371 indexed citations breakdown →
Saez, Emmanuel, Claus Thustrup Kreiner, & Henrik Kleven. (2008). The Optimal Income Taxation of Couples as a Multi-Dimensional Screening Problem. RePEc: Research Papers in Economics.1 indexed citations
17.
Kleven, Henrik & Wojciech Kopczuk. (2008). Transfer Program Complexity and the Take Up of Social Benefits. London School of Economics and Political Science Research Online (London School of Economics and Political Science).2 indexed citations
Jensen, Svend E. Hougaard, Henrik Kleven, & Rasmus Lentz. (1995). Befolkningsaldring, offentlige udgifter og finanspolitikkens holdbarhed.1 indexed citations
Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive
bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global
research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include
incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and
delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in
Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.