Geography, a key determinant of climate, and of natural resource endowments, plays a fundamental role in public health, transport costs, and the extent of diffusion of technology. It, therefore, exerts a strong influence on agricultural productivity and the quality of human resources.

International trade fosters economic convergence between the rich and the poor regions of the world through productivity change and economic growth.

The quality of institutions reflects the role of property rights and the rule of law. According to Nobel Laureate economist Douglas North, what matters are the prevailing explicit and implicit behavioural norms, and their ability to create appropriate incentives for desirable economic outcome. Recently, a number of econometric studies indicated that the quality of institutions has the strongest influence on average per capita income.

These studies have typically considered three relatively broad measures of institutions. They are: (a) quality of governance, including the degree of corruption, political rights, public sector efficiency, and regulatory burdens; (b) extent of legal protection of private property, and how well such laws are enforced; and (c) limits placed on political leaders.

Evidence indicates that differences in per capita incomes (a measure of poverty) around the globe -- ranging from only about $100 a year in parts of sub-Saharan Africa to over $40,000 in some of the advanced economies -- are closely related to differences in the quality of institutions.

For example, a 2003 IMF study estimated that the difference between the quality of institutions measured in Bolivia and Korea is 6.4-fold. In other words, if Bolivia were somehow to acquire institutions of the quality of Korea's, its per capita GDP would be close to $18,000 rather than its current level of $2,700. Not coincidentally, this is roughly the income difference between the two countries.

Good governance, and the institutional quality of civil service, are mutually inclusive. Politicians devise policies, but the onus of implementing them rests with the country's civil servants (includes all public servants on the tax-payers' payroll). Since independence, the institutions of civil service in Bangladesh were weakened through politicization and patronage. Mediocrity has been superseding meritocracy, and individual self promotion guided civil servants to please their political bosses. In the process, civil servants and politicians have made corruption the art of governance, and the country has slowly climbed the corruption ranking and has been number one for five consecutive years.

A rough estimate indicates that if the institutional quality of governance in Bangladesh could be improved to the level of North Korea, per capita GDP in Bangladesh would be nearly $14,000 (based on a PPP measure), not $2,100.

History reminds us that the bureaucracy was the de facto ruler in Pakistan from 1951, and it slowly became a corrupt entity resulting in the first military dictatorship of Field Marshal Ayub Khan. The situation had deteriorated to such an extent that the central government promulgated the Civil Services (Prevention of Corruption) Rules in 1953.

After the overthrow of Ayub Khan, General Yahya Khan took over and dismissed 303 (the infamous "three-naught-three") senior civil servants. Today's Bangladesh is seeing a continuation of that corrupt legacy, culminating in the joint plundering of the state exchequer. Politicians, without the active help of the civil servants, could not have brought such ignominy to the country.

In a recent issue of the New Civil Engineer magazine, Muyiwa Abe narrated his experience in Bangladesh about how the civil servants collaborated with the contractors to provide shady jobs. Roads that were designed to meet requirements were allowed to be built at sub-standard levels. Inferior materials were used with poor workmanship. The total thicknesses of the road pavement were drastically reduced. Yet, both the civil servants and the local consultants turned blind eyes to it. The author claimed that the site manager (a local) who was not happy with the inadequate work was eventually gunned down by unknown assailants.

During my December 2005 trip to Bangladesh a former college friend, Nurul Amin Khan, retired chief engineer of Bangladesh Railway, told me how the state minister grabbed railway property with the acquiescence of the secretary of the ministry. When Nurul Amin raised an objection the minister berated him by telling the secretary that: "Mr. Khan is not a team player." Nurul Amin had no other recourse but to sign the property grabbing papers, but maintains official evidence to this day.

These stories are the daily observable facts in today's Bangladesh. That is why five consecutive years of number one corruption ranking is irrefutable. The brotherhood of bureaucrats and politicians jointly caused this stain on the country's image. Nazmul Huda's communication ministry, and Mannan Bhuyian's LGRD and cooperatives ministry topped the corruption ranking in 2004 and 2005, not because of the two ministers, but because of the civil servants from top down (with some exceptions, if any).

After my last week's article: "The Brotherhood of Retired Bureaucrats," I received several e-mails from Dhaka.

Badrul Islam wrote: "You have penned all my thoughts, though I would have used stronger words. Right after independence bureaucrats played only a "Yes, Master" role and abetted the politicians in corruption and squandering of public funds -- they also had their share -- but the primary aim was to serve so that after retirement they could continue staying on in their jobs on contract, or qualify for a political future. This state of affairs progressed from 1972-1991, and has continued to its current worst form."

The second e-mail was not so cordial. Let the readers be the judge. Ghulam Rahman, a former secretary to the government grumbled quite a bit and concluded by writing: "May I ask you a simple question? Why did your friends, who raised all these questions, leave their country of birth, which subsidized their education and gave them so much, without giving it anything in return? Do they really have the right to raise questions regarding the intentions of retired secretaries turned columnists who at least did not abandon their country of birth, and tried to serve it faithfully and to the best of their ability? I would be delighted to see a piece of yours focusing on these questions."

Over the course of two years I wrote about seven dozen articles criticizing the policies and politicians of my country. No politician, even once, wrote or directed a harsh word against me. I am not offended, but rather saddened, at the reaction of a former secretary to the government. The list of my accomplishments, for my country, will be spoken of by others at an opportune time. It is no time now to embarrass myself by bragging about them.

To my mind, I never left the country of my birth. I crossed the border to come to a far away land looking for opportunities. I got an opportunity, and I am taking advantage of it. While coming out and seeking opportunities, I never gave away my right to criticize anything, or anyone, in my country. Most of all, I never gave up my right to love my country, and never will.

Dr. Abdullah A. Dewan is Professor of Economics at Eastern Michigan University.