Summary
The Sudan–South Sudan borderland is often portrayed as a stable region despite decades of conflict, displacement and economic crisis on both sides of the border. Drawing on 30 interviews conducted in the borderlands of Northern Bahr el-Ghazal and research into the aid sector, this research examines why political order has remained relatively stable and who benefits from that stability. It finds that stability is sustained through a combination of military-commercial monopolies, systems of extraction and rent-seeking, and patronage networks that provide limited social benefits while reinforcing elite control. Rather than reflecting strong institutions or inclusive governance, the prevailing order is maintained through unequal economic relations, the threat of violence and strategic demonstrations of social responsibility. The findings suggest that apparent stability can conceal underlying vulnerabilities and inequalities that may themselves become drivers of future instability and conflict.
Key Findings
- A relatively stable political order has been maintained by a consistent group of military entrepreneurs who control taxation, trade routes and markets and enforce daily order through coercive means
- Cycles of war, displacement and economic crisis have enabled political and military elites to build commercial monopolies, while poorer populations have become increasingly vulnerable to debt, rent extraction and precarious labour.
- Since the civil war and economic crises of the 2010s, political and economic elites have adopted increasingly predatory practices, including expanded taxation, land accumulation and tighter control over trade and resources.
- Elite authority depends not only on the threat of violence but also on the provision of limited social goods such as access to water, charitable support, employment opportunities and mediation services.
- Patronage networks and demonstrations of social responsibility help legitimise elite power and reduce resistance, even in contexts where state services are weak or absent.
- The stability of the borderland is underpinned by a tightly controlled, extractive political economy that limits the ability of poorer households to build resilience and respond to shocks
Policy Implications
- Assessments of stability in conflict-affected borderlands should consider who benefits from existing arrangements and whether apparent order masks deeper inequalities, exploitation and long-term risks
- Efforts to prevent conflict spillover should account for how systems of coercion, patronage and economic monopolisation may sustain stability while simultaneously undermining livelihoods and rights.
- Understanding who sets the terms of local labour systems, land access and welfare provision is critical for designing interventions that do not reinforce extractive or exclusionary power structures.
- Analysis of aid delivery and resource distribution should take into account local systems of elite control, including the risks of diversion, capture and unequal allocation.
- Supporting local demands for accountability, fairer economic opportunities and more equitable access to resources may be important in addressing the underlying conditions that sustain exploitative forms of stability.
- Efforts to strengthen resilience should recognise that authoritarian governance and concentrated economic control can limit communities’ ability to withstand future economic, political and environmental shocks.
This policy brief is a part of the Contested Borderlands Elite Trajectories (CBET) project