IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/f/ppr234.html
   My authors  Follow this author

Joaquín Pérez
(Joaquin Perez)

Personal Details

First Name:Joaquin
Middle Name:
Last Name:Perez
Suffix:
RePEc Short-ID:ppr234
[This author has chosen not to make the email address public]

Affiliation

Departamento de Economía
Facultad de Ciencias Económicas, Empresariales y Turismo
Universidad de Alcalá de Henares

Alcalá de Henares, Spain
http://portal.uah.es/portal/page/portal/GP_EPD/PG-MA-DPTO/PG-DPTO-Z036/
RePEc:edi:dsuahes (more details at EDIRC)

Research output

as
Jump to: Working papers Articles

Working papers

  1. Malo, M.A aand Joaquin Pérez., 2002. "Individual dismissals in Europe and the United States: A model on the influence of the legal framework on firing costs," Doctorado en Economía- documentos de trabajo 9/02, Programa de doctorado en Economía. Universidad de Alcalá..
  2. Joaquín Pérez, José L. Jimeno, Ethel Mokotoff, 2001. "Another potential strong shortcoming of AHP," Doctorado en Economía- documentos de trabajo 8/02, Programa de doctorado en Economía. Universidad de Alcalá., revised 01 Jun 2002.
  3. Joaquín Pérez, 1998. "A Strong No Show Paradox is a common flaw in Condorcet Voting Correspondences," Doctorado en Economía- documentos de trabajo 1/00, Programa de doctorado en Economía. Universidad de Alcalá., revised 2000.

Articles

  1. Joaquín Pérez & José L. Jimeno & Estefanía García, 2015. "No Show Paradox and the Golden Number in Generalized Condorcet Voting Methods," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 497-513, May.
  2. Joaquín Pérez & Omar De la Cruz, 2014. "Implementation of Jefferson-d’Hondt rule in the formation of a parliamentary committee," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 42(1), pages 17-30, January.
  3. Estefanía García & José L. Jimeno & Joaquín Pérez, 2013. "New Voting Correspondences Obtained from a Distance-Based Framework," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 379-388, May.
  4. Joaquín Pérez & José L. Jimeno & Estefanía García, 2012. "No Show Paradox in Condorcet k-voting Procedures," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 291-303, May.
  5. Jimeno, José L. & García, Estefanía & Pérez, Joaquín, 2011. "Extensions of the Young and Levenglick result about the inconsistency of Condorcet voting correspondences," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 25-27, July.
  6. José Jimeno & Joaquín Pérez & Estefanía García, 2009. "An extension of the Moulin No Show Paradox for voting correspondences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 33(3), pages 343-359, September.
  7. Joaquín Pérez & José Jimeno & Ethel Mokotoff, 2006. "Another potential shortcoming of AHP," TOP: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 14(1), pages 99-111, June.
  8. Miguel Malo & Joaquín Pérez, 2003. "Individual Dismissals in Europe and the United States: A Model on the Influence of the Legal Framework on Firing Costs," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 47-63, January.
  9. Joaqui´n Pérez, 2001. "The Strong No Show Paradoxes are a common flaw in Condorcet voting correspondences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 18(3), pages 601-616.
  10. Joaquin Pérez, 1995. "Some Comments on Saaty's AHP," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(6), pages 1091-1095, June.
  11. Perez, J. & Barba-Romero, S., 1995. "Three practical criteria of comparison among ordinal preference aggregating rules," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 85(3), pages 473-487, September.
  12. Joaquin Perez, 1995. "Incidence of no-show paradoxes in Condorcet choice functions," Investigaciones Economicas, Fundación SEPI, vol. 19(1), pages 139-154, January.
  13. Ignacio Olmeda & Joaquin Pérez, 1995. "Non-linear dynamics and chaos in the Spanish stock market," Investigaciones Economicas, Fundación SEPI, vol. 19(2), pages 217-248, May.

Citations

Many of the citations below have been collected in an experimental project, CitEc, where a more detailed citation analysis can be found. These are citations from works listed in RePEc that could be analyzed mechanically. So far, only a minority of all works could be analyzed. See under "Corrections" how you can help improve the citation analysis.

Working papers

  1. Malo, M.A aand Joaquin Pérez., 2002. "Individual dismissals in Europe and the United States: A model on the influence of the legal framework on firing costs," Doctorado en Economía- documentos de trabajo 9/02, Programa de doctorado en Economía. Universidad de Alcalá..

    Cited by:

    1. Grund, Christian, 2004. "Severance Payments for Dismissed Employees in Germany," Bonn Econ Discussion Papers 4/2004, University of Bonn, Bonn Graduate School of Economics (BGSE).
    2. Frick, Bernd & Malo, Miguel A. & Garcia Martinez, Pilar & Schneider, Martin, 2012. "The Demand for Individual Grievance Procedures in Germany and Spain: Labour Law Changes versus Business Cycle/La demanda de reclamaciones laborales individuales en Alemania y España: Derecho Laboral v," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 30, pages 283-310, Abril.
    3. Goerke, Laszlo & Pannenberg, Markus, 2009. "An economic analysis of dismissal legislation: Determinants of severance pay in West Germany," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 87, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    4. Malo, Miguel Ángel & Martín-Román, Ángel L. & Moral, Alfonso, 2016. "“Peer effects” or “quasi-peer effects” in Spanish labour court rulings," MPRA Paper 72669, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Goerke, Laszlo & Pannenberg, Markus, 2009. "The effects of income taxation on severance pay," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 107-118, January.
    6. Pilar García-Martínez & Miguel Malo, 2007. "The strategic use of dismissal legislation: an empirical analysis using Spanish data," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 151-167, April.
    7. Camille Signoretto & Julie Valentin, 2019. "Individual dismissals for personal and economic reasons in French firms: One or two models?," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-02274607, HAL.

Articles

  1. Joaquín Pérez & Omar De la Cruz, 2014. "Implementation of Jefferson-d’Hondt rule in the formation of a parliamentary committee," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 42(1), pages 17-30, January.

    Cited by:

    1. Karpov, Alexander, 2015. "Alliance incentives under the D’Hondt method," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 1-7.
    2. Omar de la Cruz Vicente & Fernando Tomé Bermejo & Rafael Ramiro Moreno, 2021. "A Disproportionality Bias in the Bureau of the Regional Assembly of Madrid," Games, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-25, December.

  2. Joaquín Pérez & José L. Jimeno & Estefanía García, 2012. "No Show Paradox in Condorcet k-voting Procedures," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 291-303, May.

    Cited by:

    1. Mostapha Diss & Ahmed Doghmi, 2016. "Multi-winner scoring election methods: Condorcet consistency and paradoxes," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 169(1), pages 97-116, October.
    2. Ignacio García-Jurado & Luciano Méndez-Naya, 2019. "Subgame Perfection and the Rule of k Names," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(4), pages 805-825, August.
    3. Joaquín Pérez & José L. Jimeno & Estefanía García, 2015. "No Show Paradox and the Golden Number in Generalized Condorcet Voting Methods," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 497-513, May.
    4. Eric Kamwa & Vincent Merlin, 2018. "Coincidence of Condorcet committees," Post-Print hal-01631176, HAL.

  3. José Jimeno & Joaquín Pérez & Estefanía García, 2009. "An extension of the Moulin No Show Paradox for voting correspondences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 33(3), pages 343-359, September.

    Cited by:

    1. Brandt, Felix & Geist, Christian & Peters, Dominik, 2017. "Optimal bounds for the no-show paradox via SAT solving," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 18-27.
    2. M. Sanver & William Zwicker, 2012. "Monotonicity properties and their adaptation to irresolute social choice rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 39(2), pages 371-398, July.
    3. Eric Kamwa & Issofa Moyouwou, 2021. "Susceptibility to Manipulation by Sincere Truncation: The Case of Scoring Rules and Scoring Runoff Systems," Studies in Choice and Welfare, in: Mostapha Diss & Vincent Merlin (ed.), Evaluating Voting Systems with Probability Models, pages 275-295, Springer.
    4. Joaquín Pérez & José L. Jimeno & Estefanía García, 2012. "No Show Paradox in Condorcet k-voting Procedures," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 291-303, May.
    5. Núñez, Matías & Sanver, M. Remzi, 2017. "Revisiting the connection between the no-show paradox and monotonicity," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 9-17.
    6. Brandl, Florian & Brandt, Felix & Hofbauer, Johannes, 2019. "Welfare maximization entices participation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 308-314.
    7. Jimeno, José L. & García, Estefanía & Pérez, Joaquín, 2011. "Extensions of the Young and Levenglick result about the inconsistency of Condorcet voting correspondences," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 25-27, July.
    8. Wesley H. Holliday & Eric Pacuit, 2021. "Measuring Violations of Positive Involvement in Voting," Papers 2106.11502, arXiv.org.
    9. Conal Duddy, 2014. "Condorcet’s principle and the strong no-show paradoxes," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(2), pages 275-285, August.
    10. Estefanía García & José L. Jimeno & Joaquín Pérez, 2013. "New Voting Correspondences Obtained from a Distance-Based Framework," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 379-388, May.
    11. Can, Burak & Ergin, Emre & Pourpouneh, Mohsen, 2017. "Condorcet versus participation criterion in social welfare rules," Research Memorandum 020, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).
    12. Joaquín Pérez & José L. Jimeno & Estefanía García, 2015. "No Show Paradox and the Golden Number in Generalized Condorcet Voting Methods," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 497-513, May.
    13. Karel Kouba & Michael Haman, 2021. "When do voters boycott elections with participation quorums?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 189(1), pages 279-300, October.
    14. Felix Brandt, 2015. "Set-monotonicity implies Kelly-strategyproofness," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(4), pages 793-804, December.
    15. Eric Kamwa & Vincent Merlin & Faty Mbaye Top, 2021. "Scoring Run-off Rules, Single-peaked Preferences and Paradoxes of Variable Electorate," Working Papers hal-03143741, HAL.
    16. Wesley H. Holliday & Eric Pacuit, 2020. "Split Cycle: A New Condorcet Consistent Voting Method Independent of Clones and Immune to Spoilers," Papers 2004.02350, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2021.
    17. Guillaume Chèze, 2017. "Topological aggregation, the twin paradox and the No Show paradox," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(4), pages 707-715, April.

  4. Joaquín Pérez & José Jimeno & Ethel Mokotoff, 2006. "Another potential shortcoming of AHP," TOP: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 14(1), pages 99-111, June.

    Cited by:

    1. Jana Stofkova & Matej Krejnus & Katarina Repkova Stofkova & Peter Malega & Vladimira Binasova, 2022. "Use of the Analytic Hierarchy Process and Selected Methods in the Managerial Decision-Making Process in the Context of Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-20, September.
    2. Ozan Çakır & İbrahim Gürler & Bora Gündüzyeli, 2022. "Analysis of a Non-Discriminating Criterion in Simple Additive Weighting Deep Hierarchy," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(17), pages 1-22, September.
    3. Schuwirth, N. & Reichert, P. & Lienert, J., 2012. "Methodological aspects of multi-criteria decision analysis for policy support: A case study on pharmaceutical removal from hospital wastewater," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 220(2), pages 472-483.
    4. Corrente, Salvatore & Greco, Salvatore & Ishizaka, Alessio, 2016. "Combining analytical hierarchy process and Choquet integral within non-additive robust ordinal regression," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 2-18.
    5. Hallikainen, Petri & Kivijärvi, Hannu & Tuominen, Markku, 2009. "Supporting the module sequencing decision in the ERP implementation process--An application of the ANP method," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 259-270, June.
    6. Goran Marinković & Zoran Ilić & Milan Trifković & Jelena Tatalović & Marko Božić, 2022. "Optimization Methods as a Base for Decision Making in Land Consolidation Projects Ranking," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-12, September.
    7. Shapiro, Arnold F. & Koissi, Marie-Claire, 2017. "Fuzzy logic modifications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 189-202.
    8. Alessio Ishizaka & Sajid Siraj, 2020. "Interactive consistency correction in the analytic hierarchy process to preserve ranks," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 43(2), pages 443-464, December.
    9. Ardalan Bafahm & Minghe Sun, 2019. "Some Conflicting Results in the Analytic Hierarchy Process," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(02), pages 465-486, March.
    10. Nikou, Shahrokh & Mezei, József, 2013. "Evaluation of mobile services and substantial adoption factors with Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 915-929.

  5. Miguel Malo & Joaquín Pérez, 2003. "Individual Dismissals in Europe and the United States: A Model on the Influence of the Legal Framework on Firing Costs," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 47-63, January.
    See citations under working paper version above.
  6. Joaqui´n Pérez, 2001. "The Strong No Show Paradoxes are a common flaw in Condorcet voting correspondences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 18(3), pages 601-616.

    Cited by:

    1. Brandt, Felix & Geist, Christian & Peters, Dominik, 2017. "Optimal bounds for the no-show paradox via SAT solving," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 18-27.
    2. Eivind Stensholt, 2013. "What shall we do with the cyclic profile?," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(1), pages 229-262, January.
    3. M. Sanver & William Zwicker, 2012. "Monotonicity properties and their adaptation to irresolute social choice rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 39(2), pages 371-398, July.
    4. Joaquín Pérez & José L. Jimeno & Estefanía García, 2012. "No Show Paradox in Condorcet k-voting Procedures," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 291-303, May.
    5. Núñez, Matías & Sanver, M. Remzi, 2017. "Revisiting the connection between the no-show paradox and monotonicity," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 9-17.
    6. Brandl, Florian & Brandt, Felix & Hofbauer, Johannes, 2019. "Welfare maximization entices participation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 308-314.
    7. Jimeno, José L. & García, Estefanía & Pérez, Joaquín, 2011. "Extensions of the Young and Levenglick result about the inconsistency of Condorcet voting correspondences," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 25-27, July.
    8. Conal Duddy, 2014. "Condorcet’s principle and the strong no-show paradoxes," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(2), pages 275-285, August.
    9. Estefanía García & José L. Jimeno & Joaquín Pérez, 2013. "New Voting Correspondences Obtained from a Distance-Based Framework," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 379-388, May.
    10. Dan S. Felsenthal & Hannu Nurmi, 2016. "Two types of participation failure under nine voting methods in variable electorates," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 168(1), pages 115-135, July.
    11. Nurmi, Hannu, 2005. "Aggregation problems in policy evaluation: an overview," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 287-300, June.
    12. Joaquín Pérez & José L. Jimeno & Estefanía García, 2015. "No Show Paradox and the Golden Number in Generalized Condorcet Voting Methods," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 497-513, May.
    13. Stefano Vannucci, 2006. "The Proportional Lottery Protocol is Strongly Participatory and VNM-Strategy-Proof," Department of Economics University of Siena 490, Department of Economics, University of Siena.
    14. Dan S. Felsenthal & Hannu Nurmi, 2019. "The No-Show Paradox Under a Restricted Domain," Homo Oeconomicus: Journal of Behavioral and Institutional Economics, Springer, vol. 35(4), pages 277-293, April.
    15. Hannu Nurmi & Madeleine O. Hosli, 2003. "Which Decision Rule for the Future Council?," European Union Politics, , vol. 4(1), pages 37-50, March.
    16. Felix Brandt, 2015. "Set-monotonicity implies Kelly-strategyproofness," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(4), pages 793-804, December.
    17. Guillaume Chèze, 2017. "Topological aggregation, the twin paradox and the No Show paradox," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(4), pages 707-715, April.

  7. Joaquin Pérez, 1995. "Some Comments on Saaty's AHP," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(6), pages 1091-1095, June.

    Cited by:

    1. Yeh, Chung-Hsing & J. Willis, Robert & Deng, Hepu & Pan, Hongqi, 1999. "Task oriented weighting in multi-criteria analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 119(1), pages 130-146, November.
    2. Kevin Kam Fung Yuen, 2014. "The Least Penalty Optimization Prioritization Operators for the Analytic Hierarchy Process: A Revised Case of Medical Decision Problem of Organ Transplantation," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(4), pages 442-461, December.
    3. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    4. Leung, L. C. & Cao, D., 2000. "On consistency and ranking of alternatives in fuzzy AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 124(1), pages 102-113, July.
    5. Luis G. Vargas, 2016. "Voting with Intensity of Preferences," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(04), pages 839-859, July.
    6. Tsuen-Ho Hsu & Ling-Zhong Lin, 2014. "Using Fuzzy Preference Method for Group Package Tour Based on the Risk Perception," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 299-323, March.
    7. Contreras, Francisco & Hanaki, Keisuke & Aramaki, Toshiya & Connors, Stephen, 2008. "Application of analytical hierarchy process to analyze stakeholders preferences for municipal solid waste management plans, Boston, USA," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 52(7), pages 979-991.
    8. Joaquín Pérez, José L. Jimeno, Ethel Mokotoff, 2001. "Another potential strong shortcoming of AHP," Doctorado en Economía- documentos de trabajo 8/02, Programa de doctorado en Economía. Universidad de Alcalá., revised 01 Jun 2002.
    9. L C Leung & Y V Hui & M Zheng, 2003. "Analysis of compatibility between interdependent matrices in ANP," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 54(7), pages 758-768, July.
    10. Azizul Azhar Ramli & Shahreen Kasim & Mohd. Farhan Md. Fuzzee & Hairulnizam Mahdin, 2017. "Teaching Performance Evaluation Framework: An Analytic Hierarchy Process Approach," Acta Informatica Malaysia (AIM), Zibeline International Publishing, vol. 1(1), pages 1-6, February.
    11. Leung, Lawrence C. & Cao, Dong, 2001. "On the efficacy of modeling multi-attribute decision problems using AHP and Sinarchy," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 132(1), pages 39-49, July.
    12. Bolloju, N., 2001. "Aggregation of analytic hierarchy process models based on similarities in decision makers' preferences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(3), pages 499-508, February.

  8. Perez, J. & Barba-Romero, S., 1995. "Three practical criteria of comparison among ordinal preference aggregating rules," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 85(3), pages 473-487, September.

    Cited by:

    1. Marchant, Thierry, 2003. "Towards a theory of MCDM: stepping away from social choice theory," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 343-363, July.

  9. Joaquin Perez, 1995. "Incidence of no-show paradoxes in Condorcet choice functions," Investigaciones Economicas, Fundación SEPI, vol. 19(1), pages 139-154, January.

    Cited by:

    1. M. Sanver & William Zwicker, 2012. "Monotonicity properties and their adaptation to irresolute social choice rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 39(2), pages 371-398, July.
    2. Joaquín Pérez & José L. Jimeno & Estefanía García, 2015. "No Show Paradox and the Golden Number in Generalized Condorcet Voting Methods," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 497-513, May.
    3. Dan S. Felsenthal & Hannu Nurmi, 2019. "The No-Show Paradox Under a Restricted Domain," Homo Oeconomicus: Journal of Behavioral and Institutional Economics, Springer, vol. 35(4), pages 277-293, April.

  10. Ignacio Olmeda & Joaquin Pérez, 1995. "Non-linear dynamics and chaos in the Spanish stock market," Investigaciones Economicas, Fundación SEPI, vol. 19(2), pages 217-248, May.

    Cited by:

    1. Gianluca Mattarocci, 2009. "Market Characteristics and Chaos Dynamics in Stock Markets: an International Comparison," Palgrave Macmillan Studies in Banking and Financial Institutions, in: Alessandro Carretta & Franco Fiordelisi & Gianluca Mattarocci (ed.), New Drivers of Performance in a Changing Financial World, chapter 6, pages 89-106, Palgrave Macmillan.
    2. Coronado-Ramírez, Semei L. & Porras-Serrano, Jesús & Venegas-Martínez, Francisco, 2011. "Estructuras no lineales en mercados eficientes: el caso IBEX-35," Sección de Estudios de Posgrado e Investigación de la Escuela Superios de Economía del Instituto Politécnico Nacional, in: Perrotini-Hernández, Ignacio (ed.), Economía: Teoría y Métodos, volume 1, chapter 8, pages 116-129, Escuela Superior de Economía, Instituto Politécnico Nacional.
    3. Evzen Kocenda, 2003. "An Alternative to the BDS Test: Integration Across The Correlation Integral," Econometrics 0301004, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Kocenda, Evzen, 1998. "Exchange rate in transition," MPRA Paper 32030, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Fernando Fernández-Rodríguez & Simón Sosvilla-Rivero & Julián Andrada-Félix, "undated". "Technical analysis in the Madrid stock exchange," Working Papers 99-05, FEDEA.
    6. McKenzie, Michael D., 2001. "Chaotic behavior in national stock market indices: New evidence from the close returns test," Global Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 35-53.
    7. Fernando Fernandez-Rodriguez & Simon Sosvilla-Rivero & Maria Dolores Garcia-Artiles, 1997. "Using nearest neighbour predictors to forecast the Spanish stock market," Investigaciones Economicas, Fundación SEPI, vol. 21(1), pages 75-91, January.

More information

Research fields, statistics, top rankings, if available.

Statistics

Access and download statistics for all items

Co-authorship network on CollEc

Corrections

All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. For general information on how to correct material on RePEc, see these instructions.

To update listings or check citations waiting for approval, Joaquin Perez
(Joaquin Perez) should log into the RePEc Author Service.

To make corrections to the bibliographic information of a particular item, find the technical contact on the abstract page of that item. There, details are also given on how to add or correct references and citations.

To link different versions of the same work, where versions have a different title, use this form. Note that if the versions have a very similar title and are in the author's profile, the links will usually be created automatically.

Please note that most corrections can take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.