← Back to paper list

Citation Analysis

Macroeconomic Effects of Active Labour Market Policies:\\ A Novel Instrumental Variables Approach
Ulrike Unterhofer, Conny Wunsch
https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.12437
170
Citation mentions
100
Cited references
9
Sections
15,345
Words (approx)

References by Citation Intensity

Ordered by composite index (descending). Higher values indicate more intensive citation.

# Reference Year Mentions Breadth Sec. Wtd Share Composite Main %
1 Card, Kluve and Weber 2018 5 3 9.0 0.029 1.000 100%
2 Wapler, Werner and Wolf 2018 4 4 7.0 0.024 0.928 100%
3 Calmfors 1994 5 2 9.0 0.029 0.874 100%
4 Fertig, Kluve and Schmidt 2006 3 3 5.0 0.018 0.843 100%
5 Wapler, Wolf and Wolff 2022 4 2 5.0 0.024 0.811 100%
6 Dahlberg and Forslund 2005 4 2 6.0 0.024 0.811 100%
7 Biewen, Fitzenberger, Osikominu and Paul 2014 4 2 8.0 0.024 0.811 100%
8 Kropp and Schwengler 2016 5 2 8.5 0.029 0.811 80%
9 3 2 4.0 0.018 0.737 100%
10 Pissarides 2000 3 2 5.0 0.018 0.737 100%
11 3 2 6.0 0.018 0.737 100%
12 Osikominu 2013 3 2 6.0 0.018 0.737 100%
13 Tolbert and Sizer 1996 3 2 6.0 0.018 0.737 100%
14 Abbring and Heckman 2007 2 2 3.0 0.012 0.644 100%
15 Calmfors and Skedinger 1995 2 2 3.0 0.012 0.644 100%
16 Lechner, Scioch and Wunsch (self) 2015 2 2 3.0 0.012 0.644 100%
17 Autor, Dorn and Hanson 2015 2 2 4.0 0.012 0.644 100%
18 Wunsch and Lechner (self) 2008 2 2 4.0 0.012 0.644 100%
19 McCall, Smith and Wunsch (self) 2016 2 2 4.0 0.012 0.644 100%
20 Kropp and Schwengler 2012 2 2 4.0 0.012 0.644 100%
21 Fertig, Schmidt and Schneider 2006 3 1 3.0 0.018 0.585 100%
22 Hujer, Rodrigues and Wolf 2009 3 1 3.0 0.018 0.585 100%
23 Dauth, Hujer and Wolf 2016 3 1 3.0 0.018 0.585 100%
24 Escudero 2018 3 1 3.0 0.018 0.585 100%
25 Altavilla and Caroleo 2013 3 1 3.0 0.018 0.585 100%
26 Kropp and Schwengler 2011 3 1 6.0 0.018 0.585 100%
27 Gautier, Muller, van der Klaauw, Rosholm and Svare... 2018 2 1 2.0 0.012 0.511 100%
28 Puhani 2003 2 1 2.0 0.012 0.511 100%
29 Nickell and Layard 1999 2 1 2.0 0.012 0.511 100%
30 2 1 2.0 0.012 0.511 100%
31 Bassanini and Duval 2007 2 1 2.0 0.012 0.511 100%
32 Blanchard and Wolfers 2000 2 1 2.0 0.012 0.511 100%
33 Doerr, Fitzenberger, Kruppe, Paul and Strittmatter 2017 2 1 4.0 0.012 0.511 100%
34 Blien and Hirschenauer 2005 2 1 4.0 0.012 0.511 100%
35 Yankova 2010 2 1 4.0 0.012 0.511 100%
36 Lechner, Miquel and Wunsch (self) 2011 2 1 4.0 0.012 0.511 100%
37 Dauth and Haller 2018 2 2 2.5 0.012 0.511 50%
38 Tolbert and Killian 1987 2 1 4.0 0.012 0.511 100%
39 Wicht, Kropp and Schwengler 2020 3 2 3.0 0.018 0.511 33%
40 Kosfeld and Werner 2012 2 2 2.5 0.012 0.511 50%
41 European Commission 2022 1 1 1.0 0.006 0.406 100%
42 Ferracci, Jolivet and van den Berg 2014 1 1 1.0 0.006 0.406 100%
43 Caria, Franklin and Witte 2022 1 1 1.0 0.006 0.406 100%
44 Blundell, Costa Dias, Meghir and Can Reenen John 2004 1 1 1.0 0.006 0.406 100%
45 1 1 1.0 0.006 0.406 100%
46 Huber and Steinmayr 2021 1 1 1.0 0.006 0.406 100%
47 Nickell 1997 1 1 1.0 0.006 0.406 100%
48 Nickell 1998 1 1 1.0 0.006 0.406 100%
49 Johansson 2001 1 1 1.0 0.006 0.406 100%
50 Scarpetta 1996 1 1 1.0 0.006 0.406 100%
51 Elmeskov, Martin and Scarpetta 1998 1 1 1.0 0.006 0.406 100%
52 Kraft 1998 1 1 1.0 0.006 0.406 100%
53 Baker, Glyn, Howell and Schmitt 2005 1 1 1.0 0.006 0.406 100%
54 Heuermann, Schmieder and vom Berge 2015 1 1 1.0 0.006 0.406 100%
55 Boeri and Burda 1996 1 1 1.0 0.006 0.406 100%
56 Heckman, Smith and Clements 1997 1 1 1.0 0.006 0.406 100%
57 Bitler, Gelbach and Hoynes 2006 1 1 1.0 0.006 0.406 100%
58 Bergemann and Van den Berg 2008 1 1 1.0 0.006 0.406 100%
59 1 1 1.0 0.006 0.406 100%
60 Wunsch (self) 2005 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
61 Imbens and Wooldridge 2009 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
62 Kruppe 2009 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
63 Blien 1998 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
64 Matysik, Leusch and Warsewa 2014 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
65 Hirschenauer 2013 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
66 Layard, Nickell and Jackman 2005 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
67 Layard, Nickell and Jackman 1991 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
68 Bjoerklund, Haveman, Hollister and Holmlund 1991 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
69 Hutter and Weber 2021 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
70 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
71 Acemoglu and Autor 2011 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
72 Autor and Dorn 2013 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
73 Wunsch (self) 2013 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
74 Fitzenberger, Orlanski, Osikominu and Paul 2013 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
75 Kopf 2013 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
76 Gordo and Wolff 2011 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
77 Stephan and Pahnke 2011 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
78 Osikominu 2021 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
79 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
80 Mortensen and Pissarides 1994 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
81 Wolff and Stephan 2013 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
82 Bell, Blundell and Van Reenen 1999 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
83 Acemoglu and Restrepo 2020 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
84 Kropp and Schwengler 2008 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
85 Kropp and Schwengler 2011 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
86 Laan and Schalke 2001 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
87 Nickell 1981 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
88 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
89 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
90 Kapetanios 2008 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
91 Galvao and Kato 2014 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
92 Sanderson and Windmeijer 2016 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
93 Angrist and Pischke 2009 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
94 Seele 2018 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
95 Stephan 2010 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
96 Jaenichen and Stephan 2011 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
97 Kruppe and Lang 2018 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
98 Cockx, Lechner and Bollens 2019 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
99 Knaus, Lechner and Strittmatter 2022 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
100 Greene 2012 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
Measures: Mentions = total in-text citations; Breadth = distinct sections; Sec. Wtd = section-weighted count (body ×2, lit review/appendix ×0.5); Share = mentions / total citations in paper; Composite = geometric mean of normalised count, breadth, and main-text ratio; Main % = fraction of mentions in main text (excl. appendix). (self) = self-citation.

Citation intensity data generated from LaTeX source analysis.