Engineering the Cost of Living in Sudan: Reducing Goods Prices, Protecting Purchasing Power, and Building a Fair Support System

Dr Mohammed Salah Ali Al-Faki
The cost-of-living crisis in Sudan cannot be measured solely by rising prices. It must also be assessed by the widening gap between the cost of basic necessities and household incomes, and by families’ declining ability to access food, medicine, and other essentials. Addressing this crisis should therefore go beyond providing temporary assistance or issuing administrative orders to fix prices without tackling the underlying causes of inflation. Instead, it requires an integrated system that reduces the cost of goods at the source, improves market efficiency, directs support to those who need it most, and protects citizens’ purchasing power.
The strategic question is not simply: how can we help citizens afford their needs today? It is also: how can we make those needs less expensive and preserve people’s ability to afford them in the future, without imposing financial obligations on the state that exceed its resources?
The success of such a system begins with understanding market conditions, quantifying the scale of the problem and then selecting interventions that deliver tangible, measurable results.
Assessing the Cost of Living based on Market Conditions
The process should begin by establishing a national baseline for the cost of living, based on a reference basket of essential goods identified through household consumption patterns and actual needs. This should cover food and other necessities, with their prices, quality and availability monitored, while accounting for differences between states and between urban and rural areas.
Recording final retail prices alone is insufficient. The various cost components must be analysed from production or importation through financing, transport, storage, fees, and distribution, up to the price paid by the consumer. Data should also be collected on household incomes, family size, income sources, and the extent to which households have been affected by job losses, displacement, or healthcare costs.
This analysis would help distinguish between price increases caused by higher production, transport or financing costs and those associated with multiple intermediaries, weak competition, unjustified fees or excessive profit margins at certain stages of the supply chain.
This does not mean assuming that all intermediaries impose an unnecessary burden on the market. Some perform essential functions in transport, storage and distribution. The objective is to identify the stages that add genuine value, eliminate unnecessary costs, and strengthen competition so that any cost reductions are passed on to consumers.
The baseline should serve as a benchmark against which interventions are evaluated. Results should not be declared based on impressions or prices at a single outlet, but should be supported by periodic data that can be compared and independently verified.
Reducing Costs at Source
A sustainable policy to ease the cost-of-living burden cannot be developed without reducing the costs of producing, transporting, financing, and storing goods. This includes reviewing fees and levies that increase product prices without commensurate economic or service benefits, facilitating finance for producers, improving transport and storage infrastructure, reducing losses and simplifying procedures that obstruct the movement of goods.
Economic exemptions and incentives should also be linked to measurable effects on production costs and final retail prices, rather than being granted without verifying whether their benefits reach ordinary citizens.
Commodity prices should be monitored at every stage of production, distribution and sale, with the sources of cost increases identified and interventions that fail to produce clear results reviewed. Fair competition and transparency must underpin market correction, rather than administratively fixed prices that disregard actual costs or lead to shortages.
Direct-Sales Markets and Stronger Competition
Co-operative markets and direct-sales outlets could be established to connect producers or suppliers directly with consumers, prioritising essential goods that are in high demand. Co-operatives, associations, production enterprises and private-sector businesses could participate under publicly declared rules governing quality, pricing and accountability.
These markets would not exclude traders or establish a state monopoly over distribution. Rather, they would provide additional competitive channels to reduce unnecessary costs, give citizens more choices and make price comparisons easier.
Prices at these outlets should reflect actual costs and reasonable operating margins, with price lists published and reviewed regularly. Their success should be measured by the price difference between their goods and those sold in the wider market, product availability, and consistent quality. It should also be verified that lower prices result from genuine purchasing and distribution efficiencies, rather than unfunded subsidies or practices that undermine competition.
These markets must not become new channels for monopolisation or favouritism in supplier selection. Participation should be open under transparent criteria that balance price, quality and the ability to fulfil supply commitments.
A Monthly Electronic Card for Essential Goods
Targeted assistance for eligible households is one component of the proposed system. It could be organised through a monthly electronic card that lets beneficiaries buy essential goods from approved outlets, including existing shops, co-operatives, and direct-sales markets.
The card would function as a dedicated payment instrument for specified goods, rather than as a cash allowance that can be withdrawn or transferred to other individuals. The system would record and facilitate transaction review, reduce duplication and manipulation, and measure whether support reaches its intended beneficiaries.
Three elements must be distinguished: the card is a payment instrument; the outlets are channels through which goods are supplied; and direct-sales markets are one means of strengthening competition. Keeping these functions separate would help create a flexible system that does not depend on establishing an entirely new state-run retail network.
Disbursements should not begin until funding is confirmed, banking and technical systems are ready, and participating outlets can supply goods and settle amounts owed to suppliers and traders within clearly defined timeframes.
Beneficiaries should also have a temporary operational alternative when connectivity fails or the card cannot be used, while maintaining documented records to prevent duplicate or uncontrolled disbursements.
Fair Eligibility and the Value of Assistance
Eligibility should be based on publicly declared criteria that account for household income, family size, loss of income, disability, healthcare burdens, displacement, and other circumstances affecting a household’s ability to meet its basic needs.
Registration and verification procedures should be simplified, with opportunities to appeal decisions and correct data. Personal information must be protected, and beneficiary lists should be reviewed periodically to prevent unjustified exclusion or continued assistance to people who no longer meet the eligibility requirements.
The value of assistance should be determined by reference to a basket of essential needs, the gap between its cost and the purchasing capacity of the targeted households, and the financial resources available. The amount should be reviewed periodically in response to price changes and funding capacity, with the basis for each review explained transparently.
Do not set a uniform payment without proper assessment, since household needs vary by family size, income, and circumstances. At the same time, eligibility criteria must remain simple and practical so that verification procedures do not become an administrative burden that delays assistance to those entitled to receive it.
The objective is not to cover all household expenditure from public funds, but to narrow the gap between the cost of essential needs and households’ ability to afford them fairly and sustainably.
Funding and Fiscal Discipline
The success of the system depends on genuine, sustainable funding, not unconfirmed pledges or future projections. Funding could come from dedicated public budget allocations, institutional contributions organised in accordance with the law, reliable donations, and zakat funds for eligible recipients in accordance with their prescribed Sharia categories and applicable rules.
Employers and institutions could also contribute towards supporting low-income workers, provided such contributions supplement wages and employment entitlements rather than replace them.
The programme should keep separate accounts. Every funding source and disbursement must be documented, and periodic reports published detailing resources, expenditure, the number of beneficiaries, operating costs and results achieved. The accounts should also be independently audited.
The cost of direct assistance can be calculated using the following formula:
Monthly assistance cost = Number of eligible households × Average monthly assistance per household.
For example, if a programme targets 100,000 households and the hypothetical average assistance is SDG 100,000 per household per month, the direct cost of assistance would be SDG 10 billion per month, before adding operating, oversight and technology costs.
This is an illustrative calculation, not an estimate of actual needs or a recommendation on the appropriate level of assistance.
Before the final budget is determined, at least three financial scenarios should be prepared: a limited scenario, a medium-scale scenario and a broader scenario. These should be based on the number of beneficiaries, the value of assistance and operating costs. The programme should adopt a scale that can be funded in practice, while retaining an appropriate contingency reserve for risks and price fluctuations. Unconfirmed donations or contributions must not be counted as available resources.
Governance and the Allocation of Responsibilities
The system requires a single lead authority responsible for coordination and accountability for results, supported by a clear division of responsibilities among the bodies tasked with identifying eligible beneficiaries, managing funding and bank settlements, operating the technical system, supplying goods, and conducting oversight and audits.
The responsible executive body should be designated after reviewing existing mandates and the relevant institutions’ capabilities. New agencies should be avoided where the programme can be implemented efficiently through existing institutions.
Registration, disbursement and supply transactions must be documented. Make public the rules governing supplier selection and participating outlets, and establish channels for complaints and appeals. Beneficiaries’ data must be protected and must not be used for purposes unrelated to the programme.
Periodic reports should disclose available and disbursed funds, the number of beneficiary households, operating costs, the availability of goods, price indicators, and resolved complaints. Independent reviews should verify the integrity of disbursements, data accuracy, and compliance with eligibility criteria.
Governance should not be measured by the existence of regulations alone. It should be assessed by the system’s ability to prevent duplication, detect errors, settle payments on time, correct irregularities and publish results regularly.
A 90-Day Pilot Implementation
The proposed approach is to begin with a limited pilot in an area where three essential conditions are met: confirmed funding, an adequate supply of goods, and sufficient banking, technical and operational capacity.
Determine the pilot’s scope after assessing local conditions, including the availability of verifiable data and the implementing bodies’ ability to monitor progress.
Days 1–15: Baseline assessment and preparation
Collect data on prices, incomes and the cost of the essential-goods basket.
Estimate the number of eligible households.
Identify and verify confirmed funding sources.
Assess the availability of goods and suppliers’ capacity.
Days 16–30: Registration and system testing
Complete registration and eligibility verification.
Approve participating outlets and suppliers.
Prepare the technical system.
Test payments, settlements, oversight and data protection, including procedures for connectivity failures.
Days 31–60: Pilot operation
Launch the pilot programme.
Monitor the availability and prices of goods and track purchases.
Record complaints, eligibility errors and settlement delays.
Address operational problems as they arise.
Days 61–90: Independent evaluation
Conduct an independent assessment of the results.
Compare prices and purchasing power against the baseline.
Calculate actual costs.
Identify successes and shortcomings.
Make a reasoned decision on whether to modify, expand or discontinue the programme.
Numerical targets should be set after the baseline data have been collected. These should cover the intended reduction in the cost of the essential-goods basket, the success rate of purchases, the accuracy of beneficiary identification, the regularity of settlements, the availability of goods and the operating cost per household.
Targets must not be set arbitrarily before the conditions to be improved are understood.
Treat the 90-day period as a test of operational feasibility and initial impact, not as sufficient evidence of long-term financial or economic sustainability.
Measuring Impact and Managing Risks
Results should be measured through two complementary sets of indicators.
1. Market efficiency and the cost of goods
Changes in the cost of the essential-goods basket compared with the baseline.
Price differences between approved outlets and other markets.
Availability and quality of goods, and the frequency of supply disruptions.
Transport, storage and distribution costs, as well as losses.
The extent to which savings resulting from cost reductions are passed on to consumers.
2. Effectiveness of assistance and protection of purchasing power
The proportion of assistance reaching eligible households and the accuracy of beneficiary identification.
The regularity with which funds are made available and the success rate of purchases.
Timely settlement of amounts owed to suppliers and traders.
Eligibility errors, duplication, and resolved complaints.
Operating and oversight costs per beneficiary household.
Improvements in households’ ability to afford the essential-goods basket.
For each indicator, an initial baseline value, a time-bound target, a data source, a responsible body and a reporting frequency should be established. This would make the indicators practical decision-making tools rather than figures presented in reports.
Potential risks include rising inflation, supply shortages, manipulation, delayed settlements, connectivity failures, data breaches, and price increases at certain outlets due to higher demand.
These risks should be addressed by diversifying suppliers, matching the number of beneficiaries to the volume of goods available, confirming funding before disbursement, strengthening oversight, providing alternative operating arrangements, protecting data and maintaining competition.
Do not authorise expansion solely on the number of cards issued or the amount disbursed. It should depend on demonstrable improvements in purchasing power, fiscal discipline, the availability of goods and reliable oversight findings.
If problems emerge that can be corrected, the programme should be adjusted. However, if funding proves insufficient, integrity is compromised, or transactions cannot be carried out reliably, suspend the affected component until the shortcomings are addressed.
From Consumer Support to Local Production
Engineering the cost of living cannot be completed merely by making goods easier to purchase. It must also be linked to increasing domestic production wherever this is economically feasible, improving the productivity of farmers and manufacturers, developing storage and food processing, and organising procurement through clear contracts that guarantee quality, price and reliable supply.
Direct-sales markets can link producers and consumers, provided contractual terms are transparent, competition is respected, and suppliers are not favoured merely because of their identity if they cannot offer suitable prices, quality, and reliability.
Sales and pricing data can also help identify the most in-demand goods, areas experiencing supply shortages, and points where costs rise. In this way, the system can evolve from an instrument of consumer assistance into a source of information that helps improve production, distribution and economic planning decisions.
From Consumption Subsidies to Sustainable Purchasing Power
Addressing the cost-of-living crisis in Sudan requires shifting from fragmented interventions to an integrated system that starts by measuring costs, reducing unjustified burdens, expanding competition, directing assistance to eligible recipients, ensuring funding and oversight, measuring impact, and linking results to the development of domestic production.
The electronic card should not be viewed as a complete solution, direct-sales markets should not be regarded as a substitute for the wider market, and assistance should not be treated as an open-ended financial commitment without a spending ceiling.
Each instrument serves a specific purpose within a unified system. Its success depends on coordinated functions, clearly defined responsibilities, reliable data and sustainable resources.
The first practical step is to establish a reliable baseline for prices, incomes and essential needs; identify eligible households; confirm available funding sources; and verify the supply of goods. This should be followed by a limited pilot with publicly declared numerical targets, whose results are independently reviewed before any decision is taken to expand the programme.
The ultimate objective is not simply to give citizens a card. It is to reduce the cost of their essential needs, improve their ability to afford them, ensure that assistance reaches those who need it, and turn limited resources into tangible improvements in people’s lives.

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=19252