Global Electrification: Conclusion

As electricity started playing a critical role in industrial, military and civilian life, it came to be viewed as an indispensable strategic resource. This, combined with rise of nationalism and intensive capital requirements of the industry, led to the "domestication" of electric utilities and hampered the development of international electric grids. American and Foreign Power, which had come to dominate the electric utility scenario post WW1, lost sizable assets in Latin America and Cuba. Post WW2 big names like Sofina became investment houses. This decline continued well till end of 70s, when barely 1% of the world's electric generation was in private hands. The big Belgian, American and Canadian names lost their considerable clout. Post 70s, the world has witnessed a trend back towards globalization and private ownership. The trend has accelerated considerably after the collapse of erstwhile USSR and the end of cold war. The multi-national organizations entered the arena again, with separation between generation and distribution becoming sharper, and their presence over multiple countries and complex cross-shareholding patterns have re-emerged. It seems that for now the balance has once again tilted towards globalization, a long time after the first great war. For how long it will stay this way is something to look out for.

This book demonstrates the effective use of holding company structure for entrepreneurial activity in capital intensive sectors. It also brings out the political risks inherent to capital-intensive sectors that grow on to become strategically indispensable. The critical role of international finance in the growth of such sectors is also explained nicely. In my view, in the current age a lot of lessons from the book may be applicable to the telecommunications industry. All in all, an excellent book that will give you a good understanding about the development of global enterprises in the last century despite of political risks, set-backs and uncertainty.

Global Electrification: The Proliferation of Electricity

Electrification initially followed settlements around railroads, energy intensive industries (like nitrogenous fertilizers, electroplating, smelters), mining operation, plantations besides in capitals, large cities and port cities. By 1939, however, it had become a part of the "modern" living and critical for industrial progress. In fact, the writers wonder if the reason behind the downward spiral of a once prosperous Argentina was related to its lack of electrification. The growth of this capital-intensive industry started with the invention of arc light, electric bulb, electric motor and electricity generator. It is notable that Edison, commonly thought of as the inventor of the electric bulb, was not the inventor of the electric bulb: the concept had been demonstrated and used by others before him. What he did invent was the use of high resistance filaments like tungsten (instead of carbon) to enable having electric bulbs connected in parallel instead of in series. This enabled the birth of first electric utility and enabled proliferation of electricity supply as a business. Initially, both AC and DC current were produced. The invention of transformers, transmission lines, DC adapters and AC motors tilted the balance towards AC power.

Electricity generation, I understand, is capital intensive. Nevertheless, it appears to be a deceptively one time investment. The engineering, financial and management experience required to run a widespread electric utility is considerable. I came across, what is referred to as, "a holding company" structure that was used to mobilize the gargantuan resources needed for such ventures. Such holding companies comprised of respectable names in the domain (to inspire trust for investments) and typically domiciled themselves in business centres that had deep capital markets and were tax friendly. The most popular destinations before WW1 were UK, Canada, Switzerland and Belgium. Additionally, there was a significant level of cross-holding amongst various holding companies and ownership was often cloaked to avoid any country-specific bias (for example, Germans established a holding company in Switzerland to invest in France and vice-versa as there was fierce German-French rivalry). This made a complex pyramidal structures with a lot of investment often being controlled by similar set of companies and investors. Further, these activities were carried in two models: entrepreneurial and buy-outs. Rings a bell? These are two major investment directions in the Private Equity world as well. This helped me to understand that many activities considered almost vintage Private Equity are in fact much older.

Global Electrification: Introduction

Now, I have started reading "Global Electrification: Multinational Enterprise and International Finance in the History of Light and Power, 1878 - 2007" by William Hausman, Peter Hertner and Mira Wilkins. In the last century, electricity and railroads were two prime forces that changes the face of earth politically, socially and economically. Hence, I am pretty curious about the journey of global electrification and the role of international finance in its development. And so far I find the book pretty interesting.

A few key patterns emerge and re-enforce themselves across various business history books I have read (including the current one). The key time periods that emerge are pre WW1, WW1, roaring 20s, Great Depression, WW2, post WW2 in cold war and post cold war. The whole world saw a lot of change across this timeline. Let us see what we can pick up about electrification and the evolution of business across this timeline.

The countries that played a predominant role in global electrification include Germany, USA, UK, Canada, France, Belgium and Switzerland. Especially Belgians had the first-mover advantage in the domain and continued to be pretty influential well until 1940s (the point till which I have read the book!). The names of Sofina and the Empian group particularly stands out as an influential Belgian holding companies. Germany, pretty predominant on the electrification scene before WW1, rapidly lost its influence after the first Great War and was thrown into a very turbulent time that just kept getting worse. Nevertheless, German manufacturing did reasonably well and some German firms like AEG and Siemens managed to invest internationally either directly or through association with Swiss/Belgian holding companies. The war also saw US getting cash rich and then investing its big piles of cash to electrify communities around the globe. In fact, by 1930 utilities were numero uno in terms of foreign direct investment from the US. UK was not able to capitalize on the decline of Germany and saw its power declining rapidly post WW1. It electrical industry remained mediocre at best. London, however, had the deepest pockets till WW1 and most entrepreneurs who wished to invest in electrification registered their company in UK or Canada to tap these funds easily. Post-WW1, US rapidly displaced UK as the number one destination for raising funds for electrification. UK itself turned more inwards, with the Government feeling that any external international investment would perhaps come at the cost of any internal domestic investment. There was clamour about replacing dependence on finance with dependence on manufacturing of "real" goods (which, strangely, does not sound too different from what I hear today after the recent economic crisis). This, overall, made UK influence on electrification weaker. Even with soft-loans to promote sales of capital intensive equipment for electricity generation, UK electrical manufacturing industry did not do particularly well. Even their massive investments were either sold off or overshadowed by Americans. The role of Canadian entrepreneurs and holding companies in electrification also stands out. In fact, even though US-UK were main source of cash, Belgium and Canada were the main sources of dynamic entrepreneurs, management talent, engineering resources and holding companies. The book is ambivalent about the role of France as I don't see any particular strengths or weaknesses emerging out of the description of their electrification activities. Nevertheless, they did invest in electrification of their own country and their colonies.