Can cultural norms reduce conflicts? Confucianism and peasant rebellions in Qing China James Kai-sing Kunga, b, Chicheng Mac, Journal of Development Economics, Volume 111, November 2014, Pages 132–149
If you need a specific version, you should say so. If you must have the latest, then you need to specify that so searchers can start with the paywall rather than go for the easiest available version.
FWIW, I don’t find their treatment of reverse causality convincing. Adoption of Confucianism as a predictor of peasant revolts is as plausible as their preferred causal arrow, and in some cases makes better sense (eg they seem to think of temples as brainwashing nearby subjects, but AFAIK most temples were not 100% state-funded and rely on contributions… so temples are more plausibly a measure of Confucianism, than a cause of Confucianism; and given how explicit Confucianism is about being a tool of central state propaganda & control, would it be at all surprising if more independent places aren’t too keen on it?).
They try to use a measure of ‘Confucian sages’ a millennium before to deal with this a bit, except that measure is from the same data source as everything else, which was compiled in the 1890s.
Can cultural norms reduce conflicts? Confucianism and peasant rebellions in Qing China James Kai-sing Kunga, b, Chicheng Mac, Journal of Development Economics, Volume 111, November 2014, Pages 132–149
Does http://ihome.ust.hk/~sojk/Kung_files/Confucian%20rebellion_Aug%202013.pdf not work? (First hit in Google Scholar.)
Its the version I’ve read, trying to see if the latest is different. They also have a version floating around from 2012.
If you need a specific version, you should say so. If you must have the latest, then you need to specify that so searchers can start with the paywall rather than go for the easiest available version.
In this case, it looks like Libgen has the final version from Elsevier: https://pdf.yt/d/96edLzq8SzpYBSuR / https://www.dropbox.com/s/8w53cqdb354umh5/2014-kung.pdf / http://gen.lib.rus.ec/scimag/get.php?doi=10.1016%2Fj.jdeveco.2014.08.006
I will remember to do so in the future, sorry for the inconvenience!
FWIW, I don’t find their treatment of reverse causality convincing. Adoption of Confucianism as a predictor of peasant revolts is as plausible as their preferred causal arrow, and in some cases makes better sense (eg they seem to think of temples as brainwashing nearby subjects, but AFAIK most temples were not 100% state-funded and rely on contributions… so temples are more plausibly a measure of Confucianism, than a cause of Confucianism; and given how explicit Confucianism is about being a tool of central state propaganda & control, would it be at all surprising if more independent places aren’t too keen on it?).
They try to use a measure of ‘Confucian sages’ a millennium before to deal with this a bit, except that measure is from the same data source as everything else, which was compiled in the 1890s.