Rational Fools: A Critique of the Behavioral Foundations of Economic Theory
Impact in
Classified as
- Authors
- Amartya Sen
- Journal
- Philosophy & Public Affairs
In The Last Decade
doi.org/w8188765 →Countries where authors are citing Rational Fools: A Critique of the Behavioral Foundations of Economic Theory
This map shows the geographic impact of Rational Fools: A Critique of the Behavioral Foundations of Economic Theory. 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 Rational Fools: A Critique of the Behavioral Foundations of Economic Theory with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Rational Fools: A Critique of the Behavioral Foundations of Economic Theory more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Rational Fools: A Critique of the Behavioral Foundations of Economic Theory
This network shows the impact of Rational Fools: A Critique of the Behavioral Foundations of Economic Theory. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Rational Fools: A Critique of the Behavioral Foundations of Economic Theory.
About Rational Fools: A Critique of the Behavioral Foundations of Economic Theory
This paper, published in 1977, received 1.6k indexed citations . Written by Amartya Sen covering the research area of Economics and Econometrics. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Economics and Econometrics (739 citations), Sociology and Political Science (594 citations), Safety Research (342 citations), Political Science and International Relations (273 citations) and General Decision Sciences (204 citations). Published in Philosophy & Public Affairs.
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.
This paper is also available at doi.org/w8188765.