Although the MLES takes a stance as a technology-neutral model, it was specifically drafted with public key infrastructure (PKI) in mind (i.
Unlike the MLES, the Convention is strictly technology-neutral (similar to the MLEC) and does not favor either implicitly or explicitly the use of digital signature or any other forms of electronic signature.
Despite the above developments in the MLES and the Convention, none of these changes have been integrated in the ETA to address the vagueness and ambiguity prevailing in section 10.
Christensen, Duncan, and Low suggested in 2003 (before the Convention was enacted in 2005) that despite the infancy of PKI, Australia should adopt the MLES.
Another problem as pointed out by Lluch, Powell and Williams (1977) is that the MLES approach works in a static Keynesian-type of consumption and a linear framework with no lags and, therefore, a distinction between the short-run and long-run is not possible under such a paradigm.
The problem of this type of analysis is that there is limited-scope for price substitutions between the commodity at the point of minimum consumption because of the assumption of the linear expansion path in the MLES.
Given the shortcomings of the MLES, one may look for a more flexible type of demand function such as the dynamic translog functions frequently used in the money demand studies.