Railway or River in a Southeast Asian Colony, 1890
In 1890, the governor of a French colony in Southeast Asia has 2.5 million francs for one transport project. Option A is a 60-km railway from the port to the rice plain, projected to cut freight costs by 35% and carry 40,000 tons a year within five years. Option B is to dredge 120 km of river and repair 30 km of feeder roads, projected to cut freight costs by 20% and serve existing villages immediately. An engineer's report favors the railway but notes that 7,000 tons of rails and locomotives must be imported at a 25% tariff. Rice exporters petition for the river, citing 12,000 peasant farms. A military memo warns that rebels move along the river and that a railway would let troops reach the interior in two days instead of eight. The governor must choose one project; the budget cannot cover both.
1. Identify the main interest behind each source and explain how that interest might shape its estimate.
Read the worked answer
The engineer's report favors the railway, but the engineer's professional standing and likely contracts with rail suppliers make the 35% freight-cut estimate optimistic; the 25% import tariff on 7,000 tons of rails and locomotives is a real cost he mentions but does not integrate. The rice exporters' petition represents 12,000 peasant farms and values immediate access, so it may understate long-term gains from a railway. The military memo values speed for counterinsurgency, not commercial return, and may inflate the rebel threat to win budget. The governor's own interest is revenue and order, so he should discount each source's central claim until the assumptions are separated: construction cost, tariff, maintenance, and enforcement. The sources are not equally reliable on the same question; they answer different questions.
2. Which project would you recommend, and what condition would you attach?
Read the worked answer
Choose the river and feeder-road project, with conditions. The railway's 2.5 million francs must cover imported rails and locomotives taxed at 25%, and its benefits arrive within five years; the river project reaches existing villages immediately and avoids most import costs. With rice exports as the fiscal base, immediate freight relief for 12,000 farms is more likely to generate tax revenue within the budget cycle. The military objection is serious: rebels use the river. Attach a condition that 10% of the budget funds river patrols and that the dredged channel is mapped for troop movement. Reverse if the engineer can show a fixed-price rail contract with the tariff absorbed and if the military can guarantee rail security; then the 35% freight cut could justify the railway. Without those guarantees, the railway is a five-year bet the governor cannot finance.