This Conclusion closes the study by summarizing the account of political economy that has been developed, which is intended to replace the standard accounts of ‘classical political economy’. The premise motivating this alternative account is that it is unacceptable to simply assume that classical political economy existed. By studying the major controversies of the period, the forms of argument active in them, and the reception of Smith’s Wealth of Nations in the doctrinal contests between Malthus and Ricardo, it was not possible to support the claim that such a unity existed. Instead, the evidence suggests that political economy was an ill-defined staging ground for contests spilling out of parliamentary debate. This is why the vast majority of texts represent attempts to supervene on policy. These texts—including those by Malthus and Ricardo—were almost always produced using ready-to-hand concepts and instruments. That is, political economy was constructed with great freedom, without intellectual specialization, and in dialogue with the controversies of the day. Moreover, it did not possess its own vocabulary or methods and was even construed as a species of political metaphysics of the same type thought to have caused the French Revolution. In such a context, theoretical speculation concerning commercial life was neither a prestigious nor an accepted form of behaviour, and both Malthus and Ricardo went to elaborate lengths to justify ‘theory’. This circumstance represents a major discontinuity between their time and ours.