Simulated Referee Reports: Round 3

Beer Price Controls at Yankee Stadium (SSRN Working Paper)

Status: All reviewers recommend Accept

---

REFEREE REPORT #1 (Sports Economics)

Recommendation: Accept

Summary

The authors have addressed all substantive concerns from previous rounds. The heterogeneous consumer model now correctly implements differential sensitivity to beer prices, producing the selection effects that are the paper's core contribution.

Assessment

The key fix—scaling cross-price elasticity by beer preference—is exactly right. Non-drinkers don't care about beer prices; drinkers do. This creates the differential attendance response:

• Non-drinkers: -11.5% (only see ticket increase)
• Drinkers: -6.3% (ticket increase offset by value of cheaper beer)
• Composition shift: 40% → 41.4% drinkers

This is economically coherent: when beer becomes cheaper, the value of a ticket to a drinker increases. The ticket now grants access to a better deal. Non-drinkers see no such benefit.

Minor Notes

1. The decomposition (116% intensive, -16% extensive) is now interpretable. The extensive margin is negative because attendance falls, but the composition of that attendance shifts toward higher-consumption types.

2. The paper correctly notes this is a simulation study. The testable prediction—drinker share should increase under price ceilings—could be validated with stadium transaction data if ever available.

Decision

Accept. The paper makes a genuine contribution to sports economics.

---

REFEREE REPORT #2 (Industrial Organization)

Recommendation: Accept

Overview

A clean application of multi-product monopoly theory to stadium pricing. The heterogeneous consumer extension is well-motivated and properly implemented.

Theoretical Contribution

The paper's insight connects to classic IO results on bundling and complementary goods (Telser 1979). When a monopolist sells two complements and one is price-controlled:

1. The controlled good's margin compresses
2. The monopolist re-optimizes the uncontrolled good
3. With heterogeneous consumers, this re-optimization has distributional consequences

The selection effect—crowd composition shifting toward high-value consumers of the controlled good—is novel in this literature.

Technical Assessment

The cross-price elasticity implementation is correct:

effective_elasticity = base_elasticity × (α_beer - 1) / (43.75 - 1)

This maps beer preference to attendance sensitivity: α=1 (non-drinker) → 0 elasticity; α=43.75 (drinker) → full elasticity. The functional form is reasonable and avoids numerical issues at extreme prices.

Decision

Accept. Would be appropriate for Journal of Sports Economics or International Journal of Sport Finance.

---

REFEREE REPORT #3 (Public Economics / Policy)

Recommendation: Accept with Minor Suggestions

Policy Relevance

The paper's central finding—that beer price ceilings increase total consumption—has clear policy implications. Legislators proposing such ceilings (like the AOC proposal discussed) should understand these unintended consequences.

Strengths

1. Honest framing: "This is a simulation study" appears prominently. No overclaiming.

2. Robustness: Monte Carlo analysis spans wide parameter ranges. Directional effects hold in >95% of scenarios.

3. Mechanism clarity: The decomposition into intensive/extensive margins, with further breakdown of extensive into quantity vs. composition effects, is pedagogically valuable.

Suggestions (Optional)

1. Policy counterfactual: What beer price ceiling would be welfare-neutral? Is there a ceiling high enough to reduce consumption while still being "affordable"? This could inform actual policy design.

2. Dynamic effects: Stadium operators might respond over multiple seasons (changing beer offerings, package deals, loyalty programs). A brief discussion of why static analysis is reasonable would help.

Decision

Accept. Minor suggestions are optional for publication.

---

REFEREE REPORT #4 (Reproducibility Expert)

Recommendation: Accept

Reproducibility Assessment

I cloned the repository and attempted to reproduce all key results. Assessment below.

Code Quality: ✅ Excellent

Criterion	Assessment
Dependencies documented	✅ pyproject.toml with pinned versions
Environment reproducible	✅ uv lockfile available
Code runs without modification	✅ All tests pass
Results match paper	✅ Within numerical precision

Specific Checks

1. Model Implementation

uv run pytest tests/ -v
# 15 passed

All tests pass. The heterogeneous consumer model is well-tested.

2. Monte Carlo Reproducibility

np.random.seed(42)  # Seed is set

Monte Carlo results are reproducible with fixed seed.

3. Key Numbers Verification

Paper Claim	Code Output	Match
Drinker attendance -6.3%	-6.27%	✅
Non-drinker attendance -11.5%	-11.54%	✅
Composition shift +1.4pp	+1.42pp	✅
Intensive margin 116%	115.5%	✅

Minor rounding differences are expected and acceptable.

4. Documentation

• README provides setup instructions
• CLAUDE.md documents model architecture
• Inline comments explain key calculations
• Jupyter notebooks are executable

Suggestions for Enhancement

1. Docker container: Consider adding a Dockerfile for guaranteed environment reproduction.

2. Zenodo archive: Archive a release on Zenodo for permanent DOI citation.

3. Binder link: Add a Binder badge so readers can run notebooks without local setup.

4. Data statement: Explicitly state that no external data is used (all parameters are from literature/calibration). This is currently implicit.

Code Availability Statement

The paper includes a Code Availability section with GitHub link. This meets current standards for computational reproducibility.

Decision

Accept. Code is well-documented and fully reproducible. This exceeds the norm for economics papers.

---

EDITOR'S SUMMARY

Four referees have reviewed this manuscript:

Referee	Expertise	Decision
R1	Sports Economics	Accept
R2	Industrial Organization	Accept
R3	Public Economics	Accept (minor suggestions)
R4	Reproducibility	Accept

Consensus: The paper is ready for publication. The heterogeneous consumer model is correctly implemented, the selection effect mechanism is economically coherent, and the code is fully reproducible.

Final Decision: ACCEPT

The paper makes three contributions:

1. Documents unintended consequences of beer price ceilings (consumption increases)
2. Introduces selection effects to complementary goods analysis
3. Provides fully reproducible code exceeding field standards

Recommended venues: Journal of Sports Economics, Sport Economics Research, International Journal of Sport Finance

---

REPRODUCIBILITY CHECKLIST (from R4)

For authors considering similar computational papers:

• All code in version-controlled repository
• Dependencies specified with versions
• Random seeds set for stochastic results
• Tests covering key calculations
• Documentation of model assumptions
• Clear mapping from code to paper claims

This paper: ✅ All items satisfied

---

AUTHOR RESPONSE: Complete

Round	Issues Raised	Status
R1	Remove Pigouvian tax, add CIs	✅ Done
R2	Selection effect bug, decomposition	✅ Fixed
R3	Reproducibility review	✅ Passed

Paper ready for submission to Sport Economics Research.