All-inclusiveness (anamnetic) – It must encompass, integrate, and incorporate all facts known about economic behaviour. Coherence – It must be chronological, structured and causal. It must explain, for instance, why a certain economic policy leads to specific economic outcomes - and why. Consistency – It must be self-consistent. Its sub-"units" cannot contradict one another or go against grain of main "theory". It must also be consistent with observed phenomena, both those related to economics and those pertaining to non-economic human behaviour. It must adequately cope with irrationality and cognitive deficits. Logical compatibility – It must not violate laws of its internal logic and rules of logic "out there", in real world. Insightfulness – It must cast familiar in a new light, mine patterns and rules from big bodies of data ("data mining"). Its insights must be inevitable conclusion of logic, language, and evolution of theory. Aesthetic – Economic theory must be both plausible and "right", beautiful (aesthetic), not cumbersome, not awkward, not discontinuous, smooth, and so on. Parsimony – The theory must employ a minimum number of assumptions and entities to explain maximum number of observed economic behaviours. Explanatory Powers – It must explain behaviour of economic actors, their decisions, and why economic events develop way they do. Predictive (prognostic) Powers – Economic theory must be able to predict future economic events and trends as well as future behaviour of economic actors. Prescriptive Powers – The theory must yield policy prescriptions, much like physics yields technology. Economists must develop "economic technology" - a set of tools, blueprints, rules of thumb, and mechanisms with power to change " economic world". Imposing – It must be regarded by society as preferable and guiding organizing principle in economic sphere of human behaviour. Elasticity – Economic theory must possess intrinsic abilities to self organize, reorganize, give room to emerging order, accommodate new data comfortably, and avoid rigid reactions to attacks from within and from without. Many current economic theories do not meet these cumulative criteria and are, thus, merely glorified narratives.

But meeting above conditions is not enough. Scientific theories must also pass crucial hurdles of testability, verifiability, refutability, falsifiability, and repeatability. Yet, many economists go as far as to argue that no experiments can be designed to test statements of economic theories.

It is difficult - perhaps impossible - to test hypotheses in economics for four reasons.

Ethical – Experiments would have to involve human subjects, ignorant of reasons for experiments and their aims. Sometimes even very existence of an experiment will have to remain a secret (as with double blind experiments). Some experiments may involve unpleasant experiences. This is ethically unacceptable. Design Problems - The design of experiments in economics is awkward and difficult. Mistakes are often inevitable, however careful and meticulous designer of experiment is. The Psychological Uncertainty Principle – The current mental state of a human subject can be (theoretically) fully known. But passage of time and, sometimes, experiment itself, influence subject and alter his or her mental state - a problem known in economic literature as "time inconsistencies". The very processes of measurement and observation influence subject and change it. Uniqueness – Experiments in economics, therefore, tend to be unique. They cannot be repeated even when SAME subjects are involved, simply because no human subject remains same for long. Repeating experiments with other subjects casts in doubt scientific value of results. The undergeneration of testable hypotheses – Economic theories do not generate a sufficient number of hypotheses, which can be subjected to scientific testing. This has to do with fabulous (i.e., storytelling) nature of discipline. In a way, economics has an affinity with some private languages. It is a form of art and, as such, it is self-sufficient and self-contained. If certain structural, internal constraints and requirements are met – a statement in economics is deemed to be true even if it does not satisfy external (scientific) requirements. Thus, standard theory of utility is considered valid in economics despite overwhelming empirical evidence to contrary - simply because it is aesthetic and mathematically convenient.

So, what are economic "theories" good for?

Economic "theories" and narratives offer an organizing principle, a sense of order, predictability, and justice. They postulate an inexorable drive toward greater welfare and utility (i.e., idea of progress). They render our chaotic world meaningful and make us feel part of a larger whole. Economics strives to answer "why’s" and "how’s" of our daily life. It is dialogic and prescriptive (i.e., provides behavioural prescriptions). In certain ways, it is akin to religion.

In its catechism, believer (let's say, a politician) asks: "Why... (and here follows an economic problem or behaviour)".

The economist answers:

"The situation is like this not because world is whimsically cruel, irrational, and arbitrary - but because ... (and here follows a causal explanation based on an economic model). If you were to do this or that situation is bound to improve".

The believer feels reassured by this explanation and by explicit affirmation that there is hope providing he follows prescriptions. His belief in existence of linear order and justice administered by some supreme, transcendental principle is restored.

This sense of "law and order" is further enhanced when theory yields predictions which come true, either because they are self-fulfilling or because some real "law", or pattern, has emerged. Alas, this happens rarely. As "The Economist" notes gloomily, economists have most disheartening record of failed predictions - and prescriptions.

Sam Vaknin is the author of Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited and After the Rain - How the West Lost the East. He is a columnist for Central Europe Review, PopMatters, and eBookWeb , a United Press International (UPI) Senior Business Correspondent, and the editor of mental health and Central East Europe categories in The Open Directory Bellaonline, and Suite101 .

Visit Sam's Web site at http://samvak.tripod.com

But pathological narcissism is not an isolated phenomenon. It is embedded in our contemporary culture. The West's is a narcissistic civilization. It upholds narcissistic values and penalizes alternative value-systems. From an early age, children are taught to avoid self-criticism, to deceive themselves regarding their capacities and attainments, to feel entitled, and to exploit others.

As Lilian Katz observed in her important paper, "Distinctions between Self-Esteem and Narcissism: Implications for Practice", published by Educational Resources Information Center, line between enhancing self-esteem and fostering narcissism is often blurred by educators and parents.

Both Christopher Lasch in "The Culture of Narcissism" and Theodore Millon in his books about personality disorders, singled out American society as narcissistic. Litigiousness may be flip side of an inane sense of entitlement. Consumerism is built on this common and communal lie of "I can do anything I want and possess everything I desire if I only apply myself to it" and on pathological envy it fosters.

Not surprisingly, narcissistic disorders are more common among men than among women. This may be because narcissism conforms to masculine social mores and to prevailing ethos of capitalism. Ambition, achievements, hierarchy, ruthlessness, drive - are both social values and narcissistic male traits. Social thinkers like aforementioned Lasch speculated that modern American culture - a self-centred one - increases rate of incidence of narcissistic personality disorder.

Otto Kernberg, a notable scholar of personality disorders, confirmed Lasch's intuition: "Society can make serious psychological abnormalities, which already exist in some percentage of population, seem to be at least superficially appropriate."

In their book "Personality Disorders in Modern Life", Theodore Millon and Roger Davis state, as a matter of fact, that pathological narcissism was once preserve of "the royal and wealthy" and that it "seems to have gained prominence only in late twentieth century". Narcissism, according to them, may be associated with "higher levels of Maslow's hierarchy of needs ... Individuals in less advantaged nations .. are too busy trying (to survive) ... to be arrogant and grandiose".

They - like Lasch before them - attribute pathological narcissism to "a society that stresses individualism and self-gratification at expense of community, namely United States." They assert that disorder is more prevalent among certain professions with "star power" or respect. "In an individualistic culture, narcissist is 'God's gift to world'. In a collectivist society, narcissist is 'God's gift to collective."

Millon quotes Warren and Caponi's "The Role of Culture in Development of Narcissistic Personality Disorders in America, Japan and Denmark":

"Individualistic narcissistic structures of self-regard (in individualistic societies) ... are rather self-contained and independent ... (In collectivist cultures) narcissistic configurations of we-self ... denote self-esteem derived from strong identification with reputation and honor of family, groups, and others in hierarchical relationships."

Still, there are malignant narcissists among subsistence farmers in Africa, nomads in Sinai desert, day laborers in east Europe, and intellectuals and socialites in Manhattan. Malignant narcissism is all-pervasive and independent of culture and society. It is true, though, that way pathological narcissism manifests and is experienced is dependent on particulars of societies and cultures.

In some cultures, it is encouraged, in others suppressed. In some societies it is channeled against minorities - in others it is tainted with paranoia. In collectivist societies, it may be projected onto collective, in individualistic societies, it is an individual's trait.

Yet, can families, organizations, ethnic groups, churches, and even whole nations be safely described as "narcissistic" or "pathologically self-absorbed"? Can we talk about a "corporate culture of narcissism"?

Human collectives - states, firms, households, institutions, political parties, cliques, bands - acquire a life and a character all their own. The longer association or affiliation of members, more cohesive and conformist inner dynamics of group, more persecutory or numerous its enemies, competitors, or adversaries, more intensive physical and emotional experiences of individuals it is comprised of, stronger bonds of locale, language, and history - more rigorous might an assertion of a common pathology be.

Such an all-pervasive and extensive pathology manifests itself in behavior of each and every member. It is a defining - though often implicit or underlying - mental structure. It has explanatory and predictive powers. It is recurrent and invariable - a pattern of conduct melding distorted cognition and stunted emotions. And it is often vehemently denied.

Sam Vaknin is the author of Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited and After the Rain - How the West Lost the East. He is a columnist for Central Europe Review, PopMatters, and eBookWeb , a United Press International (UPI) Senior Business Correspondent, and the editor of mental health and Central East Europe categories in The Open Directory Bellaonline, and Suite101 .

Visit Sam's Web site at http://samvak.tripod.com