Nevertheless neither trained economists nor scholars from other fields writing on economics come close to explaining the development of society. Most importantly, economics as a subject has developed inherent limitations which do not permit an essential development of society. However, most of these economists were trained in philosophy, history and enriched with literature and various areas of humanities. Therefore, they complimented the study of economic behaviour with other subjects like philosophy, ethics and other social sciences. In matured industrial societies it might have worked well but in case of developing societies it has not gone far in explaining the direction and pace of economic growth.
Some contemporary economists realise the shortcomings of the modern day main-stream economics.
For example, renowned economist Arthur Lewis examined as to why Europe embarked upon industrial revolution while India and China did not. Therefore, key economic variables do not explain historical discrepancy between these three regions. Similarly, differences between the economic growth of East Asia and South Asia cannot be explained by few quantitatively measurable economic or quasi-economic variables. Most of them have no familiarity with the history or culture of the countries they are working with. Most ironically, our own so-called indigenous economists, with rare exceptions, have no knowledge of history of Pakistani people, their culture, philosophy or literature.