Chapter 7 discusses the potential theoretical ramifications of this ideological narrative. It begins by discussing some of the theoretical strengths and weaknesses of ideological analysis, seeking to identify a number of methodological “best practices.” From there, it considers whether the distinctions and interplay between normative and empirical elements of ideological worldviews studied here shed any light on the theoretical analysis of other major ideologies, or of paradigmatic changes in modern politics. The creation of a descriptive and ostensibly empirical social theory to support normative positions is, of course, commonplace, but what is perhaps more interesting is that those empirical theories often develop an intellectual identity and sociopolitical lifespan quite separate from their original normative foundations. As the example of Qing fiscal policy demonstrates, empirical beliefs can often be more influential than normative ones. This has important ramifications for our general understanding of how political ideology affects legal and political institutions. In particular, it highlights and questions the role that the state plays in certifying and “discovering” politically relevant information, and how the state-driven centralization of information is as important a tool of ideological entrenchment as more normative kinds of state action, such as lawmaking.