The determination of political economists in the 1820s to repudiate what they understood to be the pessimistic conclusions of Ricardo's theory was continued by the next generation of economists in the following decade. Their ideas, however, were placed in fundamentally new perspectives, for the organising principle of their discussions of technological improvement shifted from the division of labour to capital formation. This shift was not a sharp intellectual break, but rather a change in emphasis. As has been shown, both Torrens and McCulloch placed a certain significance on capital formation and machinery, while later writers including Senior and John Rae, continued to develop the analysis of labour productivity, examining in detail skill and the organisation of labour. It is, however, evident that ‘technology’ was reformulated in the 1830s in terms of fixed capital and machinery.

This theoretical shift occurred within a definite intellectual and social context. Intellectually, the economists of this decade were self-conscious of their critical view of Ricardo and thought seriously about the implications of this for the public image of their discipline. They also responded to political and social disturbance at the time, and attached importance to the ideas and opinions they expressed on such matters and to their authority as political economists. Both these intellectual and social contexts were directly related to the theoretical analysis made of the origins, prospects and form of technological improvement.

There has been a good deal of debate on the relationship of the political economists of the 1830s to Ricardo.