From:  Moçambique: Increasing economic growth and political stability in the post civil-war era:  Useful strategies:  Summary of an organizational consultation completed in November 1991

© 1992, 1999, 2016 by Stan De Loach, Ph.D., organizational consultant

2.  Immigration policies

Management of national borders is a central task of government.  Mechanisms should be devised to leave the boundaries permeable to those goods and persons helpful to the nation's survival and impermeable to factors noxious to national survival.  Expedited crossing of the borders, subject only to minimal, rational constraints, is positively related to economic growth and survival.  Immigration and emigration policy should be liberal and should afford harmless goods and visitors simple, unencumbered crossing of the borders in both directions.

The major problems in current border management are: a) irregular enforcement of regulations, b) corrupt officials at points of entry, and c) lack of clear and available promulgation of official requirements.  Officials at immigration posts located in the nation's seaports charge fees significantly higher than those stipulated by law for the issuance or renewal of visas.  They solicit and receive substantial bribes for ignoring disregard of curfews.

The personal gain to these officials is considerable.  The loss of prestige to the nation, occasioned by visitors’ experience and broadcast abroad of these signs of poor management, is likewise considerable.

A free tourist card, patterned on the form long in use in México, should replace tourist visas.  Entry should be easy for legitimate visitors.  Any business visas or tourist cards required should be available either free or at a one-time and invariable cost of under ten United States dollars.  For citizens of all countries except those engaged in armed aggression against Moçambique, tourist cards should be available upon arrival, without the necessity of photos or petition to Moçambican embassies abroad.  Permission for entry for period of 80 to 180 days is adequate for most visitors, whether businesspersons or tourists, and should be standard.

Charges or taxes levied on foreign visitors to the country should be related directly to the services utilized.  Revenue might be generated by an airport usage fee, levied on both foreigners and national leaving the country by air.  The cost of generating this income is negligible.  The revenue collected should be invested in the improvement of airports and the provision of related services, such as regular public and private ground transportation to the nearest city center.

Simplifying the entry and exit process and rationalizing the levy of fees charged to foreign travelers lead to an increase in international respect and goodwill.  Rational and straightforward requirements project an image of a reasonable government.  Irregularities in the implementation at the nation's borders of the central government's immigration directives create the opposite effects.

By irrationally or excessively impeding entry into and exit from the country, the government appears to fear outsiders’ curiosity about or observation of the nation's internal order.  The presence or appearance of wariness, fear, or paranoia on the part of the incumbent political group alerts foreigners to the potential for irrationality and instability in the government's exercise of its duties.  A reputation for dangerous irrationality is exacerbated when, as in the case of Moçambique, there is insufficient justification for the government's cautiousness.

Reports on consultations in other areas:
1.    Steps to stimulate and reward excellence
2.    Immigration policies
3.    Transportation
4.    Tourism: Stable source of economic, cultural, and political enrichment
5.    Education and the welfare of children
6.    Stimulating the production of key agricultural products
7.    Export strategies
8.    Rational tax and tariff structures
9.    Appeal to donated (and handy) resources
10.  Managing corruption in government personnel and services
11.  Political decision-making for long-range progress

Return to initial page of this article


iii 2016
iii 2010
ii 2002