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

Nu’man Yousif Mohammed

Sudan’s economic challenges are not confined to scarce resources, declining production, and exchange rate distortions. They also extend to how these resources are managed and the degree of consistency among government decisions intended to address economic imbalances. The success of economic policy depends not merely on the soundness of individual decisions, but also on how well they complement other policies and on the ability of institutions to implement them in a coordinated manner.

Recent decisions to ban the importation of a number of goods, raise the customs exchange rate, and subsequently issue directives to lift import restrictions and exempt certain food commodities from customs duties have raised a fundamental question: How can Sudan achieve its objectives of rationalizing foreign exchange use, strengthening public revenues, protecting domestic production, and alleviating the cost-of-living burden simultaneously, without allowing economic policy instruments to conflict, overlap, or produce unintended consequences?

This issue calls for a shift away from addressing economic imbalances through isolated decisions toward managing the economy within a unified institutional framework that ensures coordination among government entities, clarifies responsibilities, and subjects outcomes to measurement and accountability.

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

Fiscal policy, monetary policy, trade policy, and production policies interact in their effects on the economy. Restricting imports may reduce demand for foreign exchange, but it can also lead to shortages and higher prices if the restrictions cover essential commodities 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 may also raise import and production costs, with knock-on effects on the prices of final goods. Conversely, exempting food commodities from customs duties may reduce their costs, but it does not guarantee lower prices unless effective competition and oversight are in place and the resulting customs savings are passed on to consumers.

These examples demonstrate that the problem does not necessarily lie in the objectives of the decisions themselves, but rather in the potential conflicts between the instruments used to implement them or the absence of prior assessments of their interrelated effects.

What is therefore required is not to centralize all decision-making authority in a single body or abolish the mandates of existing institutions, but to establish a common economic vision underpinning their decisions and ensure that these decisions are consistent with national priorities.

Second: Strengthening Institutional Coordination and Defining Responsibilities

The process should begin by activating the National Committee for Economic Management, whose launch was announced in August 2026, and establishing it as a practical framework for coordinating fiscal, monetary, trade, and production policies, rather than creating new structures whose mandates might overlap with those of 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 establishing a binding operating mechanism that includes regular meetings, a clear agenda of priorities, and implementation minutes specifying the entity responsible for each action, the resources required, and the implementation timeline.

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

In emergencies, exceptional fast-track measures may be adopted, provided that their scope and duration are clearly defined and that they are subject to subsequent review to assess their outcomes and determine whether they should be maintained or revised.

Clear accountability remains essential to the success of this framework. It must be established which entity proposes a policy, which authority is empowered to approve it, which entities are responsible for implementation, and what mechanism will resolve disputes when institutional mandates or administrative procedures conflict.

Third: Building a Shared Economic Information Database

Effective coordination is impossible when government institutions rely on inconsistent data and differing estimates. There is therefore a pressing need for a shared economic database based on reliable official sources, providing up-to-date information on public revenues and expenditure, export and import flows, prices of essential commodities, the foreign exchange requirements of productive sectors, and the volume and cost of domestic production.

Each entity should be responsible for updating the data falling within its mandate, with clearly defined update intervals and standardized definitions and indicators for analytical purposes.

A joint technical unit should also be established to support the National Committee. This unit would analyze economic proposals before approval, estimate their expected effects on inflation, prices, revenues, foreign exchange, and production, and subsequently compare actual outcomes with initial projections.

National expertise from universities, research centers, and the private sector could be mobilized to improve the quality of this analysis and reduce the risk of decisions being made on the basis of partial or incomplete assessments.

Fourth: Aligning Priorities Between the Federal Government and the States

The proliferation of fees, levies, and administrative procedures across different levels of government presents an additional challenge to the movement of goods, production costs, and trade. Strengthening coordination therefore requires establishing a unified register of legally authorized fees and levies, developing electronic collection mechanisms, and addressing illegal or duplicative charges that increase commodity prices without generating corresponding economic value.

Coordination meetings between federal economic authorities and state governments should also be strengthened, particularly regarding the flow of essential commodities, transportation costs, the marketing of agricultural products, and trade between states.

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

Protecting domestic production cannot be achieved merely by imposing import restrictions. It requires reducing production costs, facilitating access to finance, ensuring the availability of energy, transportation, and storage, improving infrastructure, and strengthening the competitiveness of locally produced goods.

Fifth: From Monitoring Decisions to Measuring Results

Institutional coordination is not complete simply because decisions have been issued and responsibilities assigned. It also requires a clear system for performance measurement and accountability for implementing entities.

This calls for an implementation matrix for every economic decision, specifying its objective, the responsible entity, supporting entities, required resources, deadline, and performance indicators.

Monitoring indicators should include trends in food prices, the availability of essential commodities 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 implementation delays or failures, and the corrective measures taken, while maintaining the confidentiality of data protected by law.

This framework could be implemented gradually over 90 days. The process would begin with an inventory of existing decisions and the identification of conflicts among them, followed by the harmonization of procedures and responsibilities. The next stage would involve activating monitoring mechanisms and measuring policy impacts, culminating in a comprehensive evaluation to determine which measures should be revised or maintained.

Linking decisions to publicly disclosed performance indicators would prevent policies from continuing merely because they were previously adopted. Instead, their continuation or revision would be guided by actual economic outcomes rather than changing assumptions or short-term pressures alone.

Conclusion: Coordination Is Essential to Effective Economic Policy

Sudan does not need more isolated decisions as much as it needs an integrated economic framework that enables fiscal, trade, monetary, and production policies to operate toward shared objectives while ensuring clear institutional mandates and coordinated implementation.

The practical priorities include activating the National Committee for Economic Management, establishing prior consultation procedures for major decisions, harmonizing data and indicators, regulating the relationship between the federal government and the states, and linking implementation to accountability and performance measurement.

Rationalizing foreign exchange use, increasing public revenues, protecting domestic producers, and alleviating the cost-of-living burden are not necessarily conflicting objectives. Rather, achieving them requires balanced policies that account for the interactions among policy instruments and establish priorities in accordance with the economy’s actual resources and needs.

A unified economic policy does not mean granting a single authority exclusive control over decision-making. It means enabling different institutions to operate within their respective mandates, guided by a shared vision, reliable data, and clearly defined responsibilities.

An economy is not managed through consistency of intentions, but through consistency of 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 living conditions of citizens.