Ethiopia 's rating on Transparency International Index remains in the doldrums - What to do?

The anti-corruption watchdog Transparency International (TI) has downgraded Ethiopia 's position in its rating. On a descending scale of 10, Ethiopia 's score is 2.4, Eritrea being placed 93rd with a cleaner score of 2.9. Altogether 163 countries were covered by the TI survey, the list being topped by Finland (9.6).

According to the 2006 index as published on Monday, Ethiopia 's ranking has shown a slight upward change to 130th. It should be noted that the lower the ranking the more corrupt the country is perceived to be. In 2004 Ethiopia was ranked 114th from 146 countries scoring 2.3 and last year took the 137th rank out of 159 countries, scoring 2.2. In one year the country nosedived 23 ranks in the public corruption index. The figures indicate that corruption is pervasive in Ethiopia . At this rate we'll still remain at the bottom of the list before the end of the decade.

Which countries ranked higher than us? It's hard to believe: This year Rwanda , Yemen , Uganda , Mali , Tanzania , including Eritrea scored higher than us in an ascending order.

Only 30 countries are ranked beneath Ethiopia and they are all perceived as being more corrupt than us. Closing the list are several countries such as Haiti, Myanmar, Iraq, Guinea, Sudan, DRC, Chad, Bangladesh, Uzbekistan, Equatorial Guinea, Côte D'Ivoire, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Sierra Leone, Pakistan, Nigeria, Kenya, Angola, Niger, Ecuador, Cameroon, Zimbabwe, Togo, Papua New Guinea and few other dubious countries.

International Transparency sources noted the close link between poor countries and corruption. This is not surprising. Corruption of the public sector is synonymous with unjust tax. It distorts designation of economic resources, diverts business activities to inefficient channels and perpetuates poverty.

Since the publication of the first index in 1995, there has been criticism over the index. Some of that criticism has been about the quality of Transparency's survey methodology. Some have argued that the variable sizes of the surveys used in different countries distort the index. The government of Prime Minister Meles is one of those who rebuffed the Transparency International index, claiming its report is based on perception, not on hard data and "positive action" by government. But then again, even hard data, such as comparing the number of prosecutions or court cases, can go soft when questions about the quality of prosecutors and the courts are added. The government' argument is rather weak on this case.

In the case of the TI Corruption Perceptions Index 2005, there is no reason at all to believe that there is a mismatch in perception. Instead, the government should change the environment in which public servants and private actors operate to reduce corruption. Public administration in Ethiopia is very much bureaucratic and inefficient. And a large number of complex, restrictive regulations coupled with inadequate controls are characteristic of Ethiopia that corruption helps to get around.

To understand corruption, institutional analysis is not enough, political commitments and establishing an anti-corruption agency are not enough. Rather, enforcement of the laws of the land should be pursued.

A political and economic analysis is important too. The process of allocating political and administrative posts - particularly those with powers of decision over critical resources - is influenced by the gains that can be made from them. And the political foundations are cemented as these exchanges of privileges are reciprocated by political support or loyalty.

In Ethiopia today, corruption is getting widespread and getting to be part of everyday life. Our society has learned to live with it, even considering it, fatalistically, as an integral part of our culture. Horrifying!