Good Governance effecting food security

Power and resources are concentrated in and around Khartoum, and outlying states are neglected and impoverished. Members of the ruling party tightly control the national economy and use their wealth to buy political support. There is little respect for private property, and the legal framework is severely hampered by years of political conflict. Therefore, the city of Khartoum is very well fed compared to the outlying areas of Sudan. The government ignores the other states, affecting food availability. The government spends near $6 billion on imports, while only receiving roughly $4 billion from exporting goods. The food quality suffers because the country lacks the funds to bring in nutritional items for dispersal among its people.

Effect of Good Governance on the typical family: The government pays little to no attention to areas outside of the capital city of Khartoum. They go ignored, therefor suffering in every aspect of their life because there is no government assistance of even presence in any areas other than Khartoum. They get no medical help, nutritional help, shelter/housing help, etc.


Present Status of Government: A federal republic with an executive, judicial, and legislative branch. Government spending accounts for ALL of the country's GDP. All rule focused over capital city and next to none focused on other areas. (See "How good governance affects food availability and quality" ^)


Trends for Sudanese government: "Freedom of corruption" is a 9.3 on a scale of 100 and currently lowering. Government spending is above 90 on a scale and currently increasing. Fiscal Freedom is at an 85 on the 100 point scale and maintaining at that level. Business Freedom, Labor Freedom, and Monetary Freedom are all in the range of the 50's and decreasing. Trade freedom, investment freedom, and financial freedom are all at very low levels and show no sign of going up and down. Therefore, the Sudanese government shows signs of continuous deprivation or maintenance, and no signs of improvement.

How improving the government would benefit Sudan: If the government were to undergo a dramatic improvement, the country of Sudan would be benefited in multiple ways. The most relevant to this project would be food security and providing food for Sudanese citizens. If more attention was given to the areas outside Khartoum and food was dispersed more evenly, malnutrition would not be near as much of an issue. Although, dramatic changes would be required.

How other major issues affect government: Climate volatility: the changing climate of Sudan is difficult for the government to adapt to. Things such as the unpredictability of rainfall, the frequent droughts, cattle raiding, etc. It provides difficulties for the government to administer agricultural growth. (http://www.ruralpovertyportal.org/country/home/tags/sudan) Population growth: population growth in Sudan is a steady 2% which is decently high, as the average family has 4 to 6 children. This creates more people for the government to eventually have to try to accommodate for, though they usually just ignore the areas where so many kids are born. (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW) Water Scarcity: Water is hardly available to the areas that need it the most, and 97% of water is provided to agricultural needs. This makes it difficult for the government to administer and manage because the economy relies on agriculture, yet the people of the country are neglected in their need for water. (http://thewaterproject.org/water-in-crisis-sudan) Energy Demand: Sudan produces and consumes very little energy. They do not have the infrastructure for producing and consuming large amounts of energy.

Additional cites: http://www.heritage.org/index/country/sudan
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/su.html