February 16, 2026 By Paulino Minyiel
This report provides a structured analysis of the 2025/26 national budget allocations to South Sudan’s states and administrative areas. It evaluates the distribution of funds relative to population size, identifies per‑capita allocation disparities, and summarizes systemic patterns that emerge from the data.
The analysis draws on publicly available population estimates from the 2021 Population Estimation Survey (PES) and the budget allocations previously reported for the fiscal year.
1. Data Overview
1.1 Budget Allocations
The national budget proposes 548.94 billion SSP in transfers to states and administrative areas for 2025/26. Allocations range widely, with the largest transfer of 38.16 billion SSP and the smallest at 3.86 billion SSP.
1.2 Population Baselines
Population numbers are taken from the National Bureau of Statistics 2021 PES, which provides the most authoritative recent figures. These population estimates vary widely across states, from above 2.6 million to below 600,000.
2. Per‑Capita Allocation Analysis
Per‑capita allocation is computed as:
Per‑Capita Allocation = Total Allocation ÷ Population
Key findings include:
2.1 Highest Per‑Capita Transfers
States and administrative areas with the highest per‑person allocations include:
Jonglei: ~43,150 SSP per person
Upper Nile: ~37,670 SSP per person
Western Bahr el Ghazal: ~34,700 SSP per person
Western Equatoria: ~34,300 SSP per person
Greater Pibor Administrative Area: ~37,620 SSP per person
These values significantly exceed the national median and are not aligned with population size.
2.2 Lowest Per‑Capita Transfers
The lowest per‑capita allocations include:
Northern Bahr el Ghazal: ~13,670 SSP per person
Warrap: ~14,460 SSP per person
Eastern Equatoria: ~16,970 SSP per person
These states have relatively large populations but receive lower per‑person allocations.
2.3 Range of Per‑Capita Values
The per‑capita transfers vary more than threefold between the strongest and weakest-funded states. This level of variance suggests that allocation mechanisms are not formulaically tied to population.
3. Structural Patterns Identified
The comparison between allocations and population reveals several observable patterns:
3.1 Imbalance Between Total Population and Total Allocation
States with large populations (e.g., Warrap, Northern Bahr el Ghazal, Central Equatoria) do not receive proportionally larger allocations. Instead, smaller population states (Jonglei, Western Equatoria, Upper Nile) often receive higher per‑capita funding.
3.2 Elevated Allocations in States With Security or Historical Administrative Weight
Regions with complex historical administrative functions or significant security burdens show higher per‑capita allocations. This trend is visible in states such as Jonglei and Upper Nile.
3.3 Resource‑Rich States Receive Above‑Population Transfers
States associated with oil production—Unity and Upper Nile—receive transfers disproportionate to their population size. This mirrors a pattern seen in resource-linked administrative allocations globally.
3.4 Under‑Allocation in High‑Population Areas
High‑population states such as Warrap and Northern Bahr el Ghazal receive relatively low per‑capita allocations. This suggests that population is not the primary driver of distribution.
4. Implications of Allocation Patterns
The observed discrepancies have several implications for fiscal planning and service delivery:
4.1 Service Delivery Constraints
States with lower per‑capita transfers may face challenges in financing essential services such as health, education, and local administration relative to their population size.
4.2 Equity Considerations
Large variations in per‑capita allocations raise questions about equity and balance in public financing, particularly for populous regions.
4.3 Administrative Burden Reflection
The high allocations to certain states may reflect salary obligations, administrative structures, or legacy expenditure commitments that do not scale with population.
4.4 Funding Adequacy Across Regions
Some small but strategically important or historically fragile regions receive elevated per‑capita allocations, suggesting an emphasis on stabilization or administrative feasibility.
Analysis of the 2025/26 state-level budget allocations shows substantial disparities when measured against population size. The data indicates that allocations are not population-based but instead reflect a combination of historical administrative structures, security priorities, resource significance, and non-demographic expenditure obligations.
These findings highlight the need for continued examination
of allocation frameworks to ensure transparency, equity, and alignment with service delivery goals.
Add comment
Comments