From Conflicting Decisions to Policy Integration: How Can We Strengthen Coordination Between State Institutions?

 

 

Noaman Yousif Mohamed

The economic challenges facing Sudan lie not only in scarce resources, declining production, and exchange-rate instability, but also in how those resources are managed and how consistent government decisions are in addressing economic imbalances. The success of economic policy depends not merely on the soundness of an individual decision, but also on how well it complements other policies and on the ability of institutions to implement it in a coordinated manner.

Decisions to ban the import of a number of goods, raise the customs exchange rate, and subsequently issue directives to lift import restrictions and exempt certain foodstuffs from customs duties have once again raised a fundamental question: how can Sudan achieve the objectives of rationalising foreign-exchange use, increasing public revenue, protecting domestic production and easing the cost-of-living burden simultaneously, without economic policy instruments conflicting or overlapping in ways that produce unintended consequences?

This issue calls for a shift from addressing imbalances through isolated decisions to managing the economy within a unified institutional framework that coordinates government bodies, clarifies responsibilities, and subjects outcomes to measurement and accountability.

First: The Core Problem — A Lack of Integration Between Economic Policy Instruments

Fiscal policy, monetary policy, trade policy and production policies interact in their effects on the economy. Restricting imports may ease demand for foreign currency, but it can also lead to shortages and higher prices if the restrictions cover essential goods or production inputs for which adequate domestic alternatives are unavailable.

Similarly, raising the customs exchange rate may increase customs revenue in Sudanese pounds on dutiable imports, but it can also raise import and production costs, with knock-on effects on finished-goods prices. Conversely, exempting foodstuffs from customs duties may reduce their cost, but this does not guarantee lower prices unless competition and effective monitoring are in place and the savings from the duty exemptions are passed on to consumers.

These examples show that the problem does not necessarily lie in the objectives themselves, but in the possibility that the instruments used to implement them may conflict, or that insufficient advance consideration may be given to their combined effects.

The aim, therefore, should not be to centralise all decision-making in a single body or abolish the mandates of existing institutions. Instead, it should establish a common economic vision that underpins their decisions and ensures they align with national priorities.

Second: Strengthening Institutional Coordination and Defining Responsibilities

The response should begin by activating the National Economic Management Committee, whose establishment was announced in August 2026. It should serve as a practical framework for coordinating fiscal, monetary, trade, and production policies, rather than creating new structures whose mandates might overlap with existing institutions.

This requires clearly defining the committee’s powers and its relationship with the Council of Ministers, government ministries, the Central Bank of Sudan and regulatory authorities. It also requires a binding working mechanism that includes regular meetings, a clear set of priorities, and implementation minutes specifying the body responsible for each action, the required resources, and the implementation timetable.

A protocol for prior consultation should also be adopted, stipulating that no major proposal concerning imports, customs duties, taxation, foreign exchange or production support may be submitted for final approval before its economic and social effects have been assessed and its consistency with existing policies and decisions has been verified.

In emergencies, exceptional fast-track procedures may be adopted, provided that their scope and duration are specified and that they are subsequently reviewed to assess their results and determine whether they should be continued or amended.

Clarity over responsibilities remains essential to this system’s success. It must be clear which body proposes a policy, which body has the authority to approve it, which institutions implement it, and what mechanism resolves disputes when mandates or procedures conflict.

Third: Building a Shared Economic Information Database

Effective coordination is impossible when government institutions rely on divergent data and estimates. Therefore, a shared economic database based on reliable official sources is needed, providing up-to-date information on public revenue and expenditure, export and import flows, the prices of essential commodities, foreign-exchange requirements in productive sectors, and the volume and cost of domestic production.

Each institution should update data within its remit, with clearly defined update intervals and standardised definitions and indicators for analysis.

A joint technical unit should also be established to support the National Economic Management Committee. Its role would be to analyse economic proposals before approval, estimate their anticipated effects on inflation, prices, revenue, foreign exchange and production, and then compare actual outcomes with initial projections after implementation.

National expertise in universities, research centres, and the private sector could be drawn on to improve the quality of analysis and reduce the risk of decisions based on partial or incomplete assessments.

Fourth: Aligning Priorities Between the Federal Government and the States

The proliferation of fees, levies, and procedures across different levels of government further complicates the movement of goods, production costs, and trade. Strengthening coordination therefore requires a unified register of legally authorised fees and levies, the development of electronic collection mechanisms, and action to eliminate illegal or duplicated charges that increase the cost of goods without generating any corresponding economic value.

Coordination meetings between federal economic authorities and the states should also be strengthened, particularly on the movement of essential commodities, transport costs, the marketing of agricultural products and trade between states.

Equally important is the adoption of a national classification of imports that distinguishes between essential goods, production inputs, and goods whose importation can be rationalised or for which adequate domestic alternatives are available. This classification should be based on supply-and-demand data, domestic productive capacity, and the effects on foreign exchange, prices and employment opportunities. It should also be reviewed periodically in response to changing economic conditions.

Protecting domestic production cannot be achieved simply by imposing import restrictions. It requires reducing production costs, facilitating access to finance, ensuring the availability of energy, transport and storage, improving infrastructure, and strengthening the competitiveness of national products.

Fifth: Moving from Monitoring Decisions to Measuring Results

Institutional coordination is not complete merely because decisions have been issued and responsibilities assigned. It requires a clear system to measure performance and hold implementing bodies accountable.

This means preparing an implementation matrix for every economic decision that sets out its objective, the responsible institution, supporting bodies, required resources, deadline, and performance indicators.

Monitoring indicators should include changes in food prices, food availability in markets, export and import volumes, actual customs revenue collected, the cost of production inputs, domestic production levels, and the time required to complete customs procedures. Periodic reports should also be published, explaining the extent to which objectives have been achieved, the reasons for any delays or failures, and the corrective measures taken, while safeguarding data whose confidentiality is protected by law.

This system could be introduced gradually over 90 days. The process would begin with an inventory of existing decisions and the identification of conflicts between them, followed by the harmonisation of procedures and responsibilities. The monitoring mechanism would then be brought into operation to measure the impact of decisions, culminating in a comprehensive assessment identifying what needs to be amended and what should remain in place.

Linking decisions to published performance indicators would prevent policies from continuing merely because they had previously been approved. Instead, review would be driven by actual economic outcomes rather than changing estimates or immediate pressures.

Conclusion: Coordination Is Essential to Effective Economic Policy

Sudan needs fewer isolated decisions and, more importantly, an integrated economic system in which fiscal, trade, monetary, and production policies work toward shared objectives, with clear mandates and coordinated implementation.

Practical priorities include activating the National Economic Management Committee, establishing prior consultation on major decisions, harmonising data and indicators, regulating the relationship between the federal government and the states, and linking implementation to accountability and results measurement.

Rationalising foreign-exchange use, increasing public revenue, protecting domestic producers and easing the cost-of-living burden are not necessarily conflicting objectives. They require balanced policies that account for interactions among policy instruments and set priorities aligned with the economy’s actual resources and needs.

A unified economic policy does not mean giving a single body a monopoly on decision-making. It means ensuring that different institutions, each operating within its own mandate, work towards a shared vision, using reliable data and clearly defined responsibilities.

An economy is managed not by consistent intentions, but by consistent policies. Nor is the effectiveness of decisions measured by the objectives they proclaim, but by the tangible results they deliver in production, prices and the everyday lives of citizens.

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=19500