SnorLax_7I see what you mean, but we can't assume that the author has stopped describing the scholars' view just because they don't attribute each statement directly to those scholars. When you're describing someone else's view, you may build up a complex description, and it would get very messy if you had to add "according to X" to each sentence.
For instance, an author might say something like this: "According to 2nd Amendment extremists, you should be able to carry a gun anywhere you like. Children should be able to play with guns in the streets. A doctor can take your pulse with one hand while shooting at targets with the other." Clearly all of that is meant to describe the view of the "extremists." The author doesn't believe that the examples in question are reasonable things to allow.
So how do we tell when the author's view reappears? We need some indication that there has been a shift in the text and we are moving on to a new idea. In the original passage, the line you're looking at builds directly on what was just said, with no indication that the author is agreeing with that view, refining it, or refuting it. After the paragraph break, the author clearly takes issue with the view, so it doesn't seem likely that they would agree that few successes had been achieved by reformers.