There has been a tendency for economic theory of the last 100 years to ignore capital accumulation altogether and to be preoccupied with analysis of the detailed relationship between the output and price of commodities. To do this, the dynamics of economic growth in the long run are ruled out by simplifying assumptions. Capital accumulation together with population growth, technological change and socio-political variables are ‘held constant’ whilst micro- and macro-models are constructed, based on prices, incomes and the concept of market-clearing equilibrium. With few exceptions this rules out discussion of most of the questions of fundamental interest to the economic historian. To a large extent, and of necessity econometric history has adapted this neoclassical paradigm and economic development has taken a back seat.

The overall growth of economies was the key preoccupation of Classical political economy from Smith and Ricardo to Marx. But from the late nineteenth century the marginalist revolution directed attention away from development issues. Only since the mid-1950s has economic growth re-emerged as a focus of study and then only in the work of a minority of economists and historians. Responding partly to the tenacity of Third World underdevelopment, despite capital injections, people like Robinson and Kuznets turned their attention to the role of finance in economic growth. At the same time a sequence of economic historians have attempted quantification and analysis of capital accumulation during Britain's industrialisation: Rostow, Deane, Pollard and, most recently, Feinstein.

Revival of interest in Classical questions has brought some renewed interest in Classical theory, particularly Marxian analysis of economic development.