Post <blockquote><blockquote><blockquote> <blockquote>Chen Shuo got another top publication: Rebel on the Grand Canal: Disrupted Trade Access and Social Conflict in China, 1650-1911. Conditionally Accepted by American Economic Review https://www.yimingcao.com/research.html </blockquote> @ZhangTaisu: This is an interesting paper, and the basic conclusion that Qing grain tribute trade routes had a large effect on regional socioeconomic stability is probably correct. However, there’s one big oddity in the results, which is that its effects begin with the first sea-shipping experiment by the Qing Court in 1826, instead of the more permanent sea shipping reforms in the later 1840s. As anyone who knows this history can tell you, the 1826 experiment lasted for a grand total of 1 year, and canal shipping resumed at normal levels shortly afterwards. It wasn’t until two decades later that more systemic changes were put in place. So why would a 1 year experiment have such a large and durable effect on local stability? You might say that local populations could anticipate the 1840s reforms after 1826, but that seems highly unlikely given the Imperial Court’s rapid backtracking. So what was the casual mechanism in the 20 years in-between? The paper really needs an answer for this.</blockquote> Very well put. I had the same question when first saw the paper years ago. This should be its own thread. </blockquote> Here you go: https://www.econjobrumors.com/topic/cond-accepted-aer-article-distorts-history-to-get-did-right</blockquote>

Send Post »

Markup: a blockquote code em strong ul ol li.