‘For the workers but without the workers’: industrial accident management under the Franco dictatorship (1939-1966)

Depósito de investigación de la Universidad de Sevilla https://idus.us.es/ “This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Business History on 2020, available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/0023656X.2020.1836139.” 1 Title 'For the workers but without the workers': industrial accident management under the Franco dictatorship (1939-1966) Author name Margarita Vilar-Rodríguez* ORCID iD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9082-2734 Jerònia Pons-Pons** ORCID iD: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0491-7038 Affiliation *Universidad de A Coruña, A Coruña, Spain **Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain Email address (for each author, identify corresponding author): Margarita VilarRodríguez: [email protected] (corresponding author); Jerònia Pons-Pons: [email protected] Margarita Vilar-Rodríguez: Facultad de Economía y Empresa, Universidad de A Coruña, Campus de Elviña, s/n, 15071 A Coruña (Spain) Jerònia Pons-Pons: Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, Universidad de Sevilla, C/Ramón y Cajal, 1, 41018 Sevilla (Spain) Margarita Vilar-Rodríguez is Senior Lecturer in Economic History at Universidad de A Coruña. Her main lines of research deal with labor market and workers' living conditions in Spain, especially under Franco´s dictatorship, and with social insurances in Spain, especially on health and industrial accidents. Jerònia Pons-Pons is Professor of Economic History at the Universidad de Sevilla. Her research focuses on the economic history of industrial insurance and on social insurance, especially on health and industrial accident insurance in Spain. Acknowledgements Funding details This work was supported by the European Union, the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), and Spain’s Ministry of Science and Innovation - State Research Agencyfor the project entitled "The historical keys of hospital development in Spain and its international comparison during the twentieth century", Number. RTI2018-094676-B-I00 No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. Keywords industrial accidents, employers´ mutuals, social risks, Europe, Spain, Francoism, twentieth century 2 Abstract In the first decades of this century, Spain still has a high industrial accident rate compared with other Western European countries. Within the framework of the most recent historiographical theses, this paper analyses the historical roots of this situation, focusing on the institutions that historically managed industrial accident insurance coverage, especially during the first decades of the Franco Dictatorship (1939-1966). This study examines how Francoist social policy favoured employers by prolonging the control of this insurance in the hands of private institutions, insurance companies and, above all, employers’ industrial accident mutuals, which excluded worker participation in its management and promoted this social coverage as a business. Archival and statistical documentation makes it possible to demonstrate that entities such as the employers’ industrial accident mutuals managed a substantial volume of the premiums paid by employers, which brought them significant profits through the refund of part of these premiums in the form of rebates. This was possible because at the same time they destined no or negligible funding to prevention and rehabilitation of workers. Ultimately, employers’ management of this insurance allowed them to meet this obligation cheaply, while maintaining a historically high accident rate in Spain and hindered the development of a culture of prevention of occupational risks. 3 Introduction The historiography has paid little attention to the study of the historical keys that explain the persistence of industrial accidents and the effect that the management of accident insurance has on the prevention of occupational risks and the coverage of injured workers. Most research in this area focuses on the context of the spread of mechanisation and new forms of work organisation with the aim of finding the origins of industrial accident insurance coverage or the compensation mechanism (e.g. Bartrip & Burman, 1983; Gordon, 1990; Tucker, 1990; Lewchuk, 1991; Aldrich, 1997; Rodgers, 1998; Fishback & Kantor, 2000; Silvestre, 2010; Le Roux, 2016). In general, these studies conclude that the nineteenth century healthcare model was incapable of dealing with the increase in industrial accidents in the more advanced countries. It is especially evident that that judgments given in legal proceedings, to which injured workers could (theoretically) resort to in order to demand care and compensation, benefitted employers (García, 2001). Meanwhile, healthcare and coverage provided by workers’ and employers’ associations was also clearly insufficient (e.g. Bartrip & Burman, 1983; Hepple, 1986; Tucker, 1990; Rodgers, 1998; Fishback & Kantor, 1998, 2000; Witt, 2004; Stritch, 2005; Murray & Nilsson, 2007). Some countries started to enact basic legislation with regard to the main social risks (accidents, old age, sickness and unemployment) from the late nineteenth century, although with different characteristics (Herranz, 2010). In particular, Lengwiler (2006) establishes three historical stages: an associative tradition in the mid-nineteenth century, a corporatist tradition around the turn of the century and a statutory tradition in the twentieth century. A specific form of expertise was developed in each stage: selforganised forms of expertise in associative insurances in the first, corporatist insurances in the second and finally bureaucratic forms in statutory insurances. 4 Industrial accident insurance paved the way in most countries and it spread relatively rapidly and widely for three basic reasons: first, this legislation was not completely new as most civil codes contemplated the payment of compensation in the event of employer responsibility (although it was necessary to prove this responsibility); second, it was the least costly insurance for the state as it was basically borne by employers; and, finally, it was the easiest insurance to incorporate and accept within the context of liberal economic thought, which was predominant at this time, because it entailed a lower moral hazard than unemployment or sickness insurance (Fishback & Kantor, 2000, p. 3). Hepple (1986, p. 117) distinguishes three stages in the expansion of legislation on industrial accident insurance or the implementation of other similar compensation systems. First, he establishes an initial period that continues up to the First World War, in which new situations were progressively incorporated under the concept of industrial accident. Second, he highlights a legislative advance in the 1920s, with the inclusion of occupational diseases in some countries. Third, he indicates the 1930s, when an accident on the way to or from work (in itinere accident) was included. In the context of this historiographical debate, this paper aims to analyse whether the industrial accident rate was perpetuated and even exacerbated during the period of the Franco dictatorship due to the maintenance of an institutional system of scant and insufficient control of accidents at work. The study attempts to answer the following questions: How did accident insurance fit into the labour framework of the Franco regime? How did it favour employers’ interests in the area of industrial accident coverage? Which interests took precedence in employers’ industrial accident mutuals, the primary managers of this social insurance? And finally, did this period establish the historical keys of the high rate of industrial accidents in Spain? All these aspects were to 5 constitute a formidable and burdensome legacy in terms of a lack of education in prevention and the industrial accident rate in Spain. Taking up the international comparison again, aspects linked to the prevention of accidents and the rehabilitation of injured workers, progressed at different paces in the countries that developed this insurance (Herranz, 2010, p. 62). In North America, the preventive aspect was more developed than in Europe, as the cost of compensation and its coverage by private insurance companies encouraged employers to invest in ways of reducing the accident rate. The introduction of compensation systems in the United States changed the behaviour of workers, reducing the investment of part of their savings in private accident insurance by 25 percent, according to the conclusions reached in Fishback & Kantor (1996, 1998). Thus, insurance companies applied the so-called ‘merit rating system’, a formula that offered premium discounts as a reward to companies that were able to reduce their accident rate by introducing prevention mechanisms supervised by engineers and with worker participation (Aldrich, 1997; Silvestre, 2008, 2016). In Europe, only a few countries such as Austria and France had similar systems (Ruffat, 1998; Murray & Nilsson, 2007). Most European countries opted for state supervision through poorly-resourced inspection systems or public research institutes that did not actually help much in reducing accident rates (Silvestre, 2006). In this respect, Guinnane & Streb (2015) show how the implementation of compulsory industrial accident insurance in Germany from 1884 made it possible to compensate injured workers, but this did not manage to stem the increase in the accident rate. Subsequent government regulation introduced more rules forcing the adoption of innovations and specific prevention practices, but these were ineffective in practice and also failed to achieve their objective. These authors conclude that greater control in the application of the new 6 legislation and greater incentives would have had a more positive effect on reducing the accident rate. Other studies have focused on the progress of social policies and the support or opposition shown by employers. In particular, Mares (2003) includes an analysis of the preferences of French and German employers in the design of the social policies of their respective countries, paying special attention to the implementation of the compulsory insurance of industrial accidents and employment. Their conclusions reveal that the position of employers was not homogeneous. Thus, while large industrial companies generally supported an institutional design that guaranteed the administration of social insurances, small French and German farmers opposed the introduction of compulsory accident insurance due to the low incidence in the sector. However, the reduction in the number of agricultural workers and progressive mechanisation changed their preferences after the Second World War, when they not only started to support the insurance but also wanted its coverage extended. The slowness of the industrialisation process in nineteenth-century Spain was a factor in the late introduction of state intervention in matters of work. The late rural exodus of the Spanish population, along with the territorial heterogeneity of agricultural and industrial production structures, gave rise to very different social problems according to region and made it difficult to establish a social programme that was minimally satisfactory for all (Martín Valverde, 1987, pp. cxiii-cxiv; Silvestre, 2008, 2016). In general, the Spanish historiography seems to agree that it was at the beginning of the twentieth century when social reformism became institutionalised in Spain. From here on, some tenuous attempts were made to improve working conditions, despite the resistance of the majority of Spanish employers. In particular, in the first decade of the twentieth century, 531 social regulations were passed: 20 laws, 101 royal decrees, 336 7 royal orders, 37 circulars and 7 dispositions, although most of them had little impact due to their difficult implementation in practice (Cabrera, 2002, p. 156). Although facing important obstacles, the state initiated a change of strategy: it progressively abandoned confrontation with the working class and sought arbitration and the promotion of measures that favoured social reform. As part of this process, Spain passed the law on industrial accidents of 30 January 1900, in the wake of neighbouring countries. The French Loi sur les accidents du travail of 1898 was especially influential (Martínez-Pérez, 2012). This law did not make it obligatory to take out insurance, but it did make employers responsible for their workers’ accidents and, therefore, for providing care and compensation in the event of accidents. The employer could take out voluntary insurance with a private insurance company authorised to operate in this line or associate with other employers to create an employers' mutual that covered the risk. The conservative and liberal governments of the early twentieth century and the dictatorship of Primo de Rivera (1923-1930) encouraged employers to voluntarily take out insurance and promoted the creation of employers' industrial accident mutuals which, through associationism, helped spread accident insurance. This was done in a context of private insurance sharing the business with commercial insurance companies. During this period, the mutuals managed this insurance activity in the interests of their members, the employers, and tried to meet their responsibilities at the lowest possible cost. In other words, they tried to maintain a low premium, which led to confrontation with the commercial companies over the strategy of attracting new customers to take out policies. Meanwhile, one of their main objectives was the creation of medical, clinical and hospital infrastructure in order to treat the injured workers of their members as efficiently and quickly as possible. Moreover, they had the appeal of 8 providing members with annual rebates in the event of profits (which was almost always the case). For its part, the state carried out inadequate control through an Inspection Service (Silvestre, 2008, p. 74). In 1923, the work inspection service had an insufficient staff of 10 regional inspectors, 63 at provincial level and 61 ancillary staff and clerks. In this year, only 7.85 percent of the infractions detected and penalised corresponded to noncompliance with safety and hygiene measures in the workplace (IRS, 1924). The political institutions collaborated with employers’ interests by maintaining compensation at lower levels than in neighbouring countries and failing to extend the responsibility for workers’ accidents to agricultural employers, despite bills presented in Parliament. Thus, for example, on comparing compensation paid as a lump sum among different European countries circa 1925, it can be seen how in Denmark, Greece and Italy it was the annual wage multiplied by 5, in Great Britain and Ireland by 3 and in Spain (as maximum) only by 2 (Silvestre, 2008, p. 77). The most profound and significant change during this first stage occurred after the proclamation of the Second Republic (1931-1936) and above all during the so-called reformist biennium from 1931 to 1933. In less than three years, responsibility was extended to agricultural employers, on a mandatory basis, and taking out accident insurance in the industrial sector also became obligatory for employers. From then on, both industrial and agricultural employers had to take out policies for their workers. This change had several consequences for the sector of employers’ mutuals. First, there was a proliferation of these mutuals. In the agricultural sector, local and provincial agricultural employers’ mutuals were required, and had to directly cover the healthcare of injured workers. In this area, insurance companies that could only offer policies to cover compensation were marginalised. The introduction of compulsory insurance for industry in 1932 had the same effect. The creation of mutuals rocketed, linked to a large extent to 15 recorded in 1930 (Table 2). The number of registered accidents at work increased from 1955 onwards, and almost doubled between 1955 and 1958. This behaviour could be explained by two facts: an improved statistical service and the unification of agricultural and industrial mutuals, which is analysed below. It is likely that before this unification the agricultural mutuals reported even fewer accidents than the industrial mutuals. (Tables 1 and 2) Indeed, the industrial accident insurance was hardly of a social nature and was essentially very commercial. In fact, it could be confused with a private insurance, as the employer could, a priori, cover the risks of incapacity for work on his own, through the National Industrial Accident Insurance Fund (Caja Nacional del Seguro de Accidentes de Trabajo, CNAT) founded during the Second Republic, or via a private insurance entity, either a mutual or an insurance company. This system of management based on these three entities was maintained in the post-war period. However, the dictatorship gave priority support to employers’ mutuals in preference to insurance companies in the management and coverage of industrial accidents, as is quite clear in the following declaration of intent (INP, 1944, p. 81). It seems clear that the mutual formula fitted in very well with the guiding philosophy of the dictatorship, where the interests of capital and the workers are supposedly no longer in opposition, but rather they converge in a higher interest, the national interest. Under these circumstances and convinced of its benefits, the state, and in its name the National Welfare Institute (Instituto Nacional de Previsión, INP), promoted employers’ mutuals with the means at its disposal and set itself up as their adviser, organiser and arbitrator (INP, 1944, p. 81). On the other hand, and within the company, these mutuals were in accord with the paternalistic attitude of employers towards their workers, as proclaimed 16 in the Labour Charter. Under this philosophy, industrial accident insurance fitted in perfectly with the dictatorship’s propaganda mechanism (INP, 1944, p. 70). Nevertheless, the workers were not represented in the mutuals in a situation where free trade unionism was prohibited (only the vertical 'union' of the Falange, allied to the dictatorship, was permitted). Under these circumstances, all decisions on recognition of incapacity, compensation and even leave and medical attention were down to the employers who led and managed the mutuals, laid down the guidelines and controlled the medical personnel who treated injured workers. It was essentially an insurance designed for the workers but without worker participation, a pattern of action very much in line with the dictatorship’s propaganda policy. In fact, the dictatorship used all the force of its propaganda machinery to announce the updating of the provisions of the compulsory industrial accident insurance in force from the period before the coup d’état of 1936. The Decree of 29 September 1943 increased the amount of incomes without, in principle, varying the existing premium rates “especially if it is borne in mind, on the one hand, that this insurance, due to its eminently social nature, should not be inspired primordially or exclusively by the profit motive” (Table 3). 9 Despite the apparent improvements, this compensation fixed as a percentage of wages continued to be low with respect to other countries, above all if it is taken into account that wages in Spain fell after the Spanish Civil War and were much lower than in other Western European countries (Vilar, 2004). (Table 3) The business of the employers’ mutuals in the coverage of industrial accidents under the Franco dictatorship In the first stage of the dictatorship, compulsory accident insurance barely underwent legislative changes. It remained under the control of the Ministry of Labour, led by the 17 Falangist José A. Girón, and its management continued to be mainly in the hands of authorised private insurance entities (employers’ mutuals and companies). The private managers mainly looked after the interests of employers, who were the clients who paid the premiums. Although premiums varied according to the profession and professional category of the worker, it is possible to affirm that the cost of this insurance was low, and cheap for the employer compared with other social insurances (Vilar, 2008, p. 235). As regards the private management of the insurance, coverage was shared between employers’ mutuals (a majority in number), national companies (predominant in premiums) and foreign companies (a small number in a scenario of limited foreign investment) (Table 4). Thus, in 1952 we found 252 entities operating in the line of industrial accidents in Spain: 186 mutuals, 61 national companies and 19 foreign companies, which shared the premiums in this line with 41.76, 45.98 and 12.26 percent respectively. Almost a decade later, in 1961, the indicated share was maintained. The data also reveal how, after the Civil War, the employers’ industrial accident mutuals took an interest in other lines of both social insurances and private insurance, which in some cases led to a great growth and diversification of their activities. Overall, the market was made up of a large number of entities, many of them small. (Table 4) Many employers chose to cover the accident risks of their workers through an employers’ mutual. This choice offered other advantages, apart from those already commented on. On the one hand, welfare mutuals of a social or charitable nature continued to be excluded from the precepts of the law on private insurance and, therefore, operated without mandatory reserves and other requirements; on the other hand, they were exempt from paying taxes as non-profit entities. Consequently, the premiums required by these entities were usually lower than those established by the commercial companies. 18 However, the proliferation of mutuals in very diverse lines and geographical areas had created enormous confusion. In fact, many commercial companies had disguised themselves in the form of mutuals to evade the control and demands envisaged in the law on private insurance of 1908 and to avoid paying taxes. To reinforce this control, from 1944 the government regularly published a list in the Official State Gazette of montepíos (similar to friendly societies) and mutuals registered with the Directorate General for Insurance (Dirección General de Previsión) and authorised to conduct business in the line of industrial accident insurance. From 1944 to 1955, a total of 2,165 insurance entities were entered in this register, which exempted them from complying with the regulations arising from the law on private insurance of 1908 (amended in 1954), including many employers’ mutual (Pons, 2011, 2015). Just for coverage of industrial accidents, 95 insurance companies, 52 agricultural mutuals and 189 industrial mutuals had registered by the mid-1950s. All of these entities were authorised by the Ministry to substitute the employer in meeting the obligations imposed by the industrial accident legislation in force. Most of the insurance companies were located in Madrid and to a lesser extent in Barcelona, Bilbao and Valencia. There was an important change for the sector of employers’ industrial accident mutuals in the mid-1950s. Within this group, there were still two distinct regimes with mutuals specialised in agricultural and industrial spheres. As from 1955, the differences between occupational accident coverage in industry and agriculture disappeared with the Law of 22 December of that year and its implementing regulation published in 1956. 10 This process was initiated by the application of the system in force for industrial workers, in the form of a regular income, to agricultural workers, who up to this time had been awarded a lump-sum compensation in the event of death or permanent incapacity. The 19 regulation also established that the agricultural mutuals had to make a new application for authorisation of their activity (in order to continue functioning) to the Directorate General for Insurance before 31 July 1956. In this way, employers could choose a mutual (without taking into account the activity) or an insurance company to cover their workers. The new legislative framework had three main consequences. First, the number of agricultural mutuals fell, above all those operating at a local or district level, as many did not complete the required procedure and ended up disappearing. However, during this period there continued to be a large constellation of small mutuals that operated on a small geographical scale. Second, the mutuals lost market share with respect to the commercial companies. This trend can be explained by the smaller number of mutuals and because in this period the commercial companies offered other advantages in the form of coverage of other risks and greater financial service facilities, as many of these insurers were linked to banking groups. Nonetheless, it is also true that premiums were higher and the medical provisions better with the insurance companies than with the mutuals. Third, the integration of both mutual regimes led to a fall in the number of workers insured and an increase in the number of registered accidents because unification was accompanied by greater statistical and bureaucratic control of claims for accidents, and lump-sum compensation was replaced by pensions in the agricultural sector, which could have led to more accidents being reported. The legislative framework also had a dual impact on the ranking of entities in the industrial accident branch. One aspect was the fact that, despite the fragmentation of the sector and the increase in competition coming from the commercial companies, the presence of mutuals in the first ten positions increased between 1950 and 1960. The other was that the percentage of premiums that these entities accounted for within the accident line decreased. A good example is the case of Mutua General de Seguros, which 20 consolidated its leadership in 1960 but lost almost a 4 percent share of total premiums in this line. Overall, according to data from the Statistical Yearbook of Spain (Anuario Estadístico de España) for 1959, the mutuals still accounted for 41 percent of premiums in the industrial accident branch and 47 percent of insured workers. In the meantime, as already mentioned above, they had diversified their activity into a large number of lines of insurance. All in all, the Franco dictatorship kept industrial accident insurance in the hands of the private sector during the period under study and provided significant support to employers’ mutuals as institutions representative of company owners. This backing was made explicit in several ways: a) the state, through the National Industrial Accident Insurance Fund, assumed the highest risks, leaving coverage of workers with less risk, and therefore with less accidents, to the private market and the employers’ mutuals. Consequently, the companies and private insurers could freely practice substantial risk selection; b) the dictatorship promoted the employers’ mutuals in many aspects, including a special tax regime, as it considered them to be institutions more in line with its social policies, and it allowed them to diversify by operating in other lines of insurance and acting as insurers in private business; c) low premiums were also maintained for employers, yet these employers were allowed to devote annual profits to refunding a considerable percentage of premiums while only a minimal or non-existent investment was made in accident prevention or rehabilitation of injured workers. The mechanisms that were used to put these policies into practice are explained below. With respect to the first aspect, the National Industrial Accident Insurance Fund, created in the period prior to the Spanish Civil War, continued as the public insurance entity of this risk. Thus, this National Fund was the body that, by express delegation of the law, was responsible for the state function of administering the capital for paying 21 incomes to incapacitated producers and their dependants. Moreover, it could also assume any risk of industrial accident 'with the same efficacy and guarantee as the private insurance entities' (INP, 1945). The existing regulation also obliged all public administrations (state, provincial, municipal, inter-island councils etc.), as well as employers, dealers and building and public service contractors, to take out insurance with the National Fund against the risk of compensation for permanent incapacity or death of workers as a result of industrial accidents. 11 Finally, this Fund kept special reserve and guarantee funds so that no producer, due either to lack of insurance or insolvency of the employer, would be left unprotected in this area. During the first decades of the post-Civil War period, it can be seen that the National Fund collected a smaller volume of premiums than the private entities authorised to operate in the line of industrial accidents (Table 5). The data reveal that employers preferred to insure their workers with the latter. However, the key to this imbalance lay not so much with the volume of premiums collected as in the ratio of ratio of claims to volume of premiums. The technicians of the National Fund drew up a report on accidents and came to the conclusion that in the comparative statement of the percentages of accidents between the National Fund and three private insurance companies there were substantial differences. 12 Hence, according to the data obtained for 1949, the percentage of claims costs incurred in relation to premiums earned was: National Fund (81.24 percent), L´Abeille (operations in Spain, 51.9 percent), Mutua General de Seguros (45.57 percent) and Mutua Regional de Accidentes del Trabajo (48.8 percent). The difference in the accident rate, or at least in the rate of claims, continued over time. Thus, while the for the National Fund claims were the equivalent of 77.94 percent of premiums collected in 1960, the private entities operated with a much lower claims ratio, 58.19 percent for that year. This was because the National Fund was obliged by law 22 to assume all types of risk without being able to make a risk selection, unlike the private entities 'which reject those operations that due to their short duration and dangerous nature mainly exacerbate the risk, possible since their acceptance of the claims that are considered to be industrial accidents is voluntary, unlike the situation [of the National Fund] as an official entity with a fundamentally social activity' (Velarde, de Guindos & Lázaro, 1963). From this perspective, the technical director of the National Welfare Institute classified these different percentages as 'reasonable' due to the possibility of risk selection that the private entities had and the National Fund did not have (as a consequence of article 148 of the Insurance Regulation). Thus, for example, in the case of silicosis, an occupational disease with a high level of incidence and which therefore produces a very high number of claims, it can be seen that many insurance entities explicitly excluded it from their risk policies; a practice that was not permitted for the National Fund, since it did not have the option of rejecting any risks. In the 1952 financial year alone, the National Fund had to recognise silicosis-related claims for the amount of 3.9 million pesetas, whereas the corresponding revenue was only 84,215.02 pesetas. 13 Overall, it seems clear that the coexistence of public and private entities in the management of this insurance led to additional costs for the public administration while generating clear advantages and benefits for the private sector. (Table 5) As regards the fiscal aspect during this period, the Franco regime had very confusing legislation in relation to the mutuals’ exemption from paying taxes. The tax reform passed by Larraz in 1941 established that the mutuals would no longer be exempt from paying taxes and would pay the minimum contribution, which led to a lengthy debate. The discussion was centred on whether the new law applied the minimum contribution (as a percentage of premiums, not of profits) to all the mutuals that had been 23 exempt up until then or only to those that made a profit. Finally, the tax regulation of 1958 maintained a special tax regime for the mutuals where it was established that they would not be taxed on their profits under the corporate tax and would only pay taxes by means of a levy on insurance premiums in force (regardless of their profits). 14 On the contrary, as from 1941, the deposits that the insurance companies and insurance mutuals had to establish to guarantee industrial accident coverage were standardised, and were set at 1 percent of the wages insured in the previous financial year. 15 On the other hand, in the mid-1950s, the different Francoist governments allowed employers’ mutuals to carry out a diversification process for their 'business' by extending their activities to other lines of private insurance, above all fire and livestock (concentrated in the agricultural mutuals in this case). This process was advocated by the mutuals both in the interest of increasing their profits and out of fear of the incorporation of industrial accident insurance into the implementation of a future Social Security system integrating all social risks into a single fund with state management. Here, we should remember that there was no single system of Social Security in Spain until 1963 but rather, from a legal standpoint, the social insurances remained independent, with their own funds and management system (Pons & Vilar, 2020). By the end of the 1950s, the mutuals had achieved a notable percentage of total premiums collected in two social insurances that were key elements of their operations in these years: industrial accident (42.4 percent of the total) and sickness (52.4 percent of the total) (Pons, 2015, p. 203). In this respect, it must be remembered that the mutuals continued to enjoy an important advantage over the commercial companies: the rebates (refund of part of the premium to members if there were profits) that enabled them to set a lower final premium. Meanwhile, the agricultural mutuals played a decisive role in the coverage of hail and livestock insurance, although their overall market share diminished over time. 24 As for the private insurance companies, they provided this social insurance along similar economic lines to other branches of private insurance. In particular, the industrial accident branch accounted for a quarter of their total premiums in 1940, and this percentage increased until it became their main branch by volume of premiums (Pons, 2006, p. 81). The growing interest of commercial companies in this field led to a rise in the number of authorised companies from 38 in 1941 to 63 in 1945 and then 95 in 1955. This process of fragmentation was accompanied by a progressive concentration of business with the large companies that were gaining market share. Thus, in 1940, five companies that operated in the line of industrial accidents already concentrated 42 percent of premiums: Mutua General de Seguros (12 percent), La Unión y el Fénix Español (9 percent), Caja de Previsión y Socorro (9 percent), La Vasco Navarra (6 percent) and Hispania (6 percent) (Pons, 2006, p. 81). On the whole, the employers’ mutuals operated alongside the commercial companies in the line of industrial accidents with little state intervention or control of the destination of the premiums paid by the employers. It should be highlighted that, as one of their greatest achievements, these entities created an important healthcare infrastructure of clinics and dispensaries to treat injured workers, although with a goal that was more restorative and aimed at providing forensic examinations for workers than with any preventive design. This goal was essential for employers. Nonetheless, the mutuals gave priority to providing rebates to their members rather than investing in prevention, an investment that remained minimal or non-existent. One example of this habitual practice of the employers’ mutuals is Mutua Metalúrgica de Seguros, based in Madrid, which was to reach third in the ranking by volume of premiums in 1960. 16 This mutual was formed under the patronage of the Sindicato Patronal Metalúrgico in Madrid and was incorporated in accordance with the 31 Barciela, C. (ed.) (2003). Autarquía y mercado negro. El fracaso económico del primer franquismo. Barcelona: Crítica. Bartrip, P. W. J., & Burman, S. B. (1983). The Wounded Soldiers of Industry Industrial Compensation Policy, 1833-1897. New York: Clarendon Press of Oxford University Press. Bibiloni, A., & Pons, J. (1999). El Desarrollo de las Mutualidades Patronales de Accidentes de Trabajo en España. el Mercado Balear: Entre la Competencia y la Colusión. Revista de Historia Industrial, 15, 83-104. Cabrera, M. (2002). El poder de los empresarios: política e intereses económicos en la España contemporánea (1875-2000). Madrid: Taurus. Carreras, A., & Tafunell, X. (2005). Estadísticas Históricas de España. Siglos XIX y XX. Madrid: Fundación BBVA. Castejón, E., & Crespán, X. (2007). Accidentes de trabajo: [casi] todos los porqués. Cuadernos de Relaciones Laborales, 25(1), 13-57. Catalan, J. (2011). Los cuatro franquismos económicos, 1939-77: de la involución autárquica a la conquista de las libertades. In S. Cruz, & J. Ponce (coords.), El mundo del trabajo en la conquista de las libertades (pp. 55-114). Jaén: Universidad de Jaén. Cerón, C. (2011). Historia de la Prevención de Riesgos Laborales en España desde el Tardo franquismo a la transición. Baetica. Estudios de Arte, Geografía e Historia, 33, 399-412. Fishback, P. V., & Kantor, S. E. (1996). The Durable Experiment: State Insurance of Workers’ Compensation Risk in the Early Twentieth Century. The Journal of Economic History, 56(4), 809-836. Fishback, P. V., & Kantor, S. E. (1998). The Political Economy of Workers’ Compensation Benefit Levels, 1910-1930. Explorations in Economic History, 35(2), 109139. Fishback, P. V., & Kantor, S. E. (2000). A Prelude to the Welfare State. The Origins of Worker’s Compensation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Galán, A. (2009). Accidentes de Trabajo en España, 1900-2007. El perfil de las víctimas. Seguridad y Medio Ambiente, 116, 14-24. Galán, A. (2010). Los accidentes de trabajo en la Agricultura Española durante el primer tercio del s. XX. 28 de abril, Revista Digital de Salud y Seguridad en el Trabajo, 1, 1-22. Galán, A. (2016). La Siniestralidad laboral en España, 1900-2010: un relato entre lo evidente y lo prioritario [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Huelva]. 32 University of Huelva eTheses Repository. http://rabida.uhu.es/dspace/bitstream/handle/10272/12119/La_siniestralidad_laboral.pdf ?sequence=4 García Fernández, C. (2005). El archivo de HUNOSA y la construcción de la seguridad en la minería del carbón asturiana. Oviedo: Hunosa. García González, G. (2001). Antecedentes a la Ley de Accidentes del Trabajo de 1900 en materia de Prevención de Riesgos Laborales (1873-1900). In C. Arenas, A. Florencio, & J. Pons (eds.), Trabajo y relaciones laborales en la España contemporánea (pp. 395401). Sevilla: Minerva. Gordon, M. S. (1990). La política de seguridad social en los países industrializados. Madrid: Ministerio de Trabajo. Guinnane T. W., & Streb, J. (2015). Incentives that (could have) Saved Lives: Government Regulation of Accident Insurance Associations in Germany, 1884-1914. The Journal of Economic History, 75(4), 1196-1227. Hepple, B. (1986). Welfare Legislation and Wage-Labour. In B. Hepple (ed.), The Making of Labour Law in Europe. A comparative Study of Nine Countries up to 1945 (pp. 114-153). London: Mansell Publishing. Herranz, A. (2010). La difusión internacional de los seguros sociales antes de 1945. In J. Pons, & J. Silvestre (eds.), Los orígenes del Estado del Bienestar en España, 1900-1945: los seguros de accidentes, vejez, desempleo y enfermedad (pp. 51-84). Zaragoza: Prensas Universitarias de Zaragoza. IRS, Instituto de Reformas Sociales (1924). Memoria General de la Inspección del Trabajo correspondiente al año 1923. Madrid: Instituto de Reformas Sociales. INP, Instituto Nacional de Previsión (1944). Los seguros sociales en España. Madrid: INP. INP, Instituto Nacional de Previsión (1945). Caja Nacional de Seguro de Accidentes del Trabajo (CNAT), Hoja divulgadora núm. 42, publicación 611. Madrid: INP. Jordana de Pozas, L. (1953). Los Seguros Sociales en España 1936-1950. Madrid: INP. Le Roux, T. (dir.) (2016). Risques industriels. Savoirs, régulations, politiques d’assistance (fin XVIIe-début XXe siècle). Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes. Lengwiler, M. (2006, August 21-25). Styles of expertise: A comparison of expert-based risk policies in German and British welfare institutions (1850-1950) [Paper presentation]. XIV International Economic History Congress, Session 47, Helsinki. Finland. 33 Lewchuk, W. (1991). Industrialization and Occupational Mortality in France prior to 1914. Explorations in Economic History, 15(3), 397-416. Mares, I. (2003). The Politics of Social Risk: Business and Welfare State Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Martín Serrano, A., & Colmenar, J. (1989). Las Mutuas Patronales. La gestión privada de la Seguridad Social. Madrid: Trivium. Martín Valverde, A. (1987). La legislación social en la Historia de España. De la Revolución Liberal a 1936. Madrid: Congreso de los Diputados. Martínez González, M. C., & Menéndez Navarro, A. (2006). El Instituto Nacional de Silicosis y las enfermedades respiratorias profesionales en España. In J. L. Álvarez Sala, P. Casan, & V. Villena (coords.), Historia de la neumología y la cirugía torácica españolas (pp. 145-162). Madrid: Ramírez de Arellano Editores. MartínezPérez, J. (2012). Deficiencias corporales y utilidad para el trabajo: Simulación, discapacidad y medicina en España (1900-1930). In A. Cohén (coord.), El trabajo y sus riesgos en la época contemporánea: Conocimiento, codificación, intervención y gestión (pp. 123-144). Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona. Martínez, J., & del Cura, M. (2016). Bolstering the Greatness of the Homeland: Productivity, Disability and Medicine in Franco’s Spain, 1938-1966. Social History of Medicine, 28(4), 805-824. Murray, J. E., & Nilsson, L. (2007). Accident risk compensation in late imperial Austria: Wage differentials and social insurance. Explorations in Economic History, 44(4), 568587. Pons, J. (2006). El Seguro de Accidentes de Trabajo en España: de la Obligación al Negocio (1900-1940). Investigaciones de Historia Económica, 2(4), 77-100 Pons, J. (2010). El Seguro Obligatorio de Enfermedad y la Gestión de la Entidades Colaboradoras (1942-1963). Revista de la Historia de la Economía y de la Empresa, 4, 227-248. Pons, J. (2011). La gestión patronal del seguro obligatorio de accidentes de trabajo durante el franquismo (1940-1975). Revista de Historia Industrial, 45, 109-144. Pons-Pons, J. (2012). Las mutuas patronales y la gestión del seguro de accidentes de trabajo en España hasta su incorporación a la Seguridad Social (1920-1966). In A. Cohen (coord.), El trabajo y sus riesgos en la época contemporánea: Conocimiento, codificación, intervención y gestión (pp. 253-286). Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona. 34 Pons-Pons, J. (2015). Support for Mutual Insurance Companies During the Franco Dictatorship (1939-1975). In R. Pearson, & T. Yoneyama (eds.), Corporate Forms and Organizational Choice in International Insurance (pp. 193-230). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pons-Pons, J., & Vilar-Rodríguez, M. (2012). Labour repression and social justice in Franco’s Spain’: the political objectives of compulsory sickness insurance (1942-1957). Labor History 53 (2), 245–267. Pons-Pons, J., & Vilar-Rodríguez, M. (2020). La gestión del seguro de accidentes del trabajo en España: de mutuas patronales a entidades colaboradoras de la Seguridad Social, 1900-2019. Madrid: Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social. Rodgers, D. T. (1998). Atlantic Crossings. Social Politics in a Progressive Age. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Ruffat, M. (1998). The Role of Insurance in the Prevention of Work-related Accidents in France in the First Half of the XXth Century. Dynamis, 18, 447-463. Sánchez Navarro, D. A. (2003). La gestión de la Seguridad Social en España. Madrid: CES. Sánchez López, R. & E. Nicolás Marín (1993). Sindicalismo vertical franquista: la institucionalización de una antinomia (1939-1977). In D. Ruiz (dir.), Historia de Comisiones Obreras (1958-1988) (pp. 13-17). Madrid: Siglo XXI. Silvestre, J. (2006). Wage Compensation for Workplace Disamenities During Industrialisation. The Case of Spain, 1909-1920. Labor History, 47(1), 43-72. Silvestre, J. (2008). Workplace Accidents and Early Safety Policies in Spain, 1900-1932. Social History of Medicine, 21(1), 67-86. Silvestre, J. (2010). Improving Workplace Safety in the Ontario Manufacturing Industry, 1914-1939. Business History Review, 84(3), 527-550. Silvestre, J. (2016). Industrialización y accidentes de trabajo en España (finales del siglo XIX y primer tercio de siglo XX). In D. Gallego, L. Germán, & V. Pinilla (coords.), Estudios sobre el desarrollo económico español: dedicados al profesor Fernández Clemente (pp. 301-311). Zaragoza: Prensas Universitarias de Zaragoza. Stritch, A. (2005). Power Resources, Institutions and Policy Learning: The Origins of Workers’ Compensation in Quebec. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 38(3), 549579. 35 Tucker, E. (1990). Administering Danger in the Workplace: The Law and Politics of Occupational Health and Safety Regulation in Ontario, 1850-1914. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Úbeda y Correa, J. (1909). Influencia del Domingo en los Accidentes del Trabajo. Madrid: Artes Gráficas Plus Ultra. Valenzuela, E. (1995). Las Mutuas de Accidentes de Trabajo: su actividad de prevención y la Ley de Prevención de Riesgos Laborales. Cuadernos de Relaciones Laborales, 7, 111-116. Velarde Fuertes, J. (1963). Problemas en torno al mercado del seguro de accidentes del trabajo en España. Revista de Trabajo, 3, 9-23. Velarde, J., de Guindos, A., & Lázaro, M. (1963). Aspectos Estadísticos del Seguro de accidentes de trabajo en España. Revista de Trabajo, 4, 9-46. Vilar-Rodríguez, M. & Pons-Pons, J. (2019). Competition and collaboration between public and private sectors: the historical construction of the Spanish hospital system (1942-1986). The Economic History Review, 72(4), 1384-1408. Vilar-Rodríguez, M. (2004). La ruptura postbélica a través del comportamiento de los salarios industriales: nueva evidencia cuantitativa (1908-1963). Revista de Historia Industrial, 25, 81-126. Vilar-Rodríguez, M. (2008). El mercado de trabajo como estrategia política del régimen franquista (1936-1975). In J. de la Torre, & G. Sanz (eds.), Migraciones y coyuntura económica del Franquismo a la Democracia (pp. 153-176). Zaragoza: Prensas Universitarias de Zaragoza. Vilar-Rodríguez, M. (2009). Los salarios del miedo. Mercado de trabajo y crecimiento económico en España durante el franquismo. Santiago de Compostela: Fundación 10 Marzo. Vilar-Rodríguez, M. (2017). El trabajo como pieza clave del puzle de la economía española: algunas reflexiones desde la historia económica (1939-2016). Historia, Trabajo y Sociedad, 8, 35-63. Witt, J. F. (2004). The Accidental Republic. Crippled Working men, Destitute Widows, and the Remaking of American Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 36 Table 1. Industrial accidents in Spain by type of incapacity caused Year Temporary Definitive injury Partial Total Absolute Severe disability Death Total 1940 299,970 - 658 59 26 - 582 301,295 1941 353,876 - 879 73 17 - 655 355,500 1942 345,279 - 500 82 24 - 554 346,439 1943 359,583 - 585 128 62 - 595 360,953 1944 374,714 - 552 117 38 - 660 376,081 1945 385,661 - 400 84 24 - 552 386,721 1946 423,271 - 469 94 32 - 621 424,487 1947 441,109 - 429 86 31 - 556 442,211 1948 441,333 - 491 81 19 - 554 442,478 1949 407,856 - 435 61 24 - 584 408,960 1950 422,364 - 374 109 27 - 538 423,412 1951 426,048 - 312 99 21 - 487 426,967 1952 456,239 - 267 107 25 - 489 457,127 1953 477,969 - 327 123 37 - 517 478,973 1954 499,880 - 273 131 34 - 487 500,805 1955 521,403 - 272 106 36 - 533 522,350 1956 670,671 - 214 90 28 - 534 671,537 1957 985,032 1,382 384 152 29 10 731 987,720 1958 998,883 1,626 475 182 43 12 908 1,002,129 1959 989,171 2,533 494 247 39 22 890 993,396 1960 941,803 2,044 632 250 49 9 859 945,646 1961 1,004,027 2,807 796 287 66 16 970 1,008,969 1962 950,916 3,044 806 310 52 11 832 955,971 1963 1,003,684 3,247 621 401 63 24 810 1,008,850 Source: Based on the Statistical Yearbooks of Spain (Anuarios Estadísticos de España). Table 2. Ratio of industrial accidents to the entire working population in Spain Year Non-Fatal for each 10,000 workers Fatal for each 100,000 workers 1930 639.0 18.3 1940 309.1 6.0 1945 358.2 5.1 1950 373.2 4.7 1954 442.8 4.3 1955 454.5 4.6 1956 575.5 4.6 1957 833.6 6.2 1958 830.2 7.5 1959 831.9 7.5 1960 802.7 7.3 1961 855.0 8.2 1962 803.3 7.0 1963 842.8 6.8 Source: For 1930, see Silvestre (2008), Table 1. For other years, Table 1 and Carreras & Tafunell (2005, Tables 15.13 and 15.14). 37 Table 3. Compensation for industrial accidents established in 1943 Temporary incapacity In general, the injured worker receives a benefit equivalent to three-quarters of the daily wage for a limited period Permanent incapacity. If the injuries sustained reduce fitness for work the victim of the accident would receive a pension 1) of 35% of his wage if his fitness for his habitual profession is reduced: the mutilation of a foot, eye, finger, indispensable phalanges, hernias, etc... are considered typical phenomena of partial incapacity. The worker may continue performing his professional tasks, but with less efficiency 2) of 55% of his wage if the incapacity is absolute for the previous profession: loss of a hand, all fingers, deafness and impaired vision are sufficient cause to determine total incapacity which would oblige the worker to change his habitual occupation 3) of 75% of his wage if the incapacity is for all work: confers the worker with absolute incapacity (loss of both upper or lower limbs, blindness, functional injuries, etc.) 4) of 150% of his wage if he is considered to be severely disabled, that is, when the victim’s most indispensable vital operations require the assistance of another person (100% of the wage, plus 50% of the wage for the person assisting him) In the event of death of the worker, the family would receive a lifelong income 1) of 75% of the wage if the beneficiaries are the widow with children, grandchildren unfit for work and orphans under 18 years of age. The same descendants without the widow have the right to the same protection 2) 37.5% of the wage if the beneficiaries are the widow alone or with children over 18 years of age 3) 40% of the wage if the beneficiaries are parents and the grandparents when poor, at least 60 years of age or unable to work 4) 30% of the wage when there is just one direct ascendant Source: Own preparation on the basis of the Decree of 29 September 1943 increasing compulsory industrial accident insurance benefits, Official State Gazette (BOE), 300, 27 October 1943, pp. 10365-6 and INP (1944, p. 71). Table 4. Groups of private entities in the line of industrial accidents and in all lines of insurance Entities Industrial accident line All lines of insurance 1952 1961 1952 1961 No. entities % premiums in the line No. entities % premiums in the line No. entities % premiums in the line No. entities % premiums in the line Mutuals 186 41.76 196 43.08 258 21.59 271 20.40 National companies 61 45.98 74 46.92 175 64.29 312 67.33 Foreign companies 19 12.26 26 10.00 71 14.12 61 12.27 Total 266 100 296 100 504 100 644 100 Total in thousands of pesetas 927,653 2,950,994 3,303,573 10,750,000 Source: Based on Velarde, de Guindos & Lázaro (1963, p. 20). Table 5. Industrial accident insurance. Single premiums paid into the National Fund (in current pesetas) National Fund Companies and Mutuals Non-insured Employers Guarantee Fund Total 1940 4,780,947.20 30,446,574.24 1,887,973.82 37,115,495.26 1941 7,590,960.37 41,078,823.43 558,774.16 49,228,557.26 1942 7,520,481.17 50,026,330.28 835,405.88 53,382,217.33 1943 19,656,992.46 48,344,253.60 1,615,694.81 69,616,940.87 1944 35,181,425.54 63,115,441.84 112,194.24 3,208,186.73 102,626,248.35 1945 35,385,896.74 87,267,765.91 474,108.58 1,280,346.25 124,408,117.48 1946 40,559,170.98 87,117,553.36 1,322,191.15 2,174,087.08 131,173,002.57 1947 50,002,979.51 114,112,670.69 1,628,403.24 2,865,947.32 168,610,000.76 38 1948 55,005,934.79 130,187,895.56 2,424,026.23 2,393,770.49 190,011,627.07 1949 64,423,425.43 137,086,145.43 1,889,078.06 3,411,312.89 206,809,961.81 1950 71,447,490.81 143,472,046.08 1,393,209.24 3,543,526.75 219,856,272.88 Source: Based on Jordana (1953, Table 4, p. 106). Table 6. La Metalúrgica (line of industrial accidents) in current pesetas Year Premiums Surplus Rebate Year Premiums Surplus Rebate 1934 123,232.34 - - 1948 1,217,985.27 372,290.69 304,267.25 1935 196,807.88 - - 1949 1,306,830.59 469,998.58 326,576.80 1936 242,277.21 - - 1950 1,504,966.83 452,816.61 376,238.58 1937 158,259.40 - - 1951 - 514,666.53 432,881.45 1938 126,639.50 - - 1952 1,817,588.00 430,072.00 454,132.05 1939 188,566.65 - - 1953 2,078,215.52 590,132.59 519,556.32 1940 464,220.59 - - 1954 2,714,664.59 609,608.10 609,515.47 1941 459,363.39 - - 1955 3,254,258.47 773,635.99 715,551.64 1942 451,744.69 31,378.02 - 1956 4,397,319.77 1,015,332.35 966,640.10 1943 476,814.50 12,610.92 - 1957 6,558,712.55 1,649,123.48 1,442,933.91 1944 568,150.18 176,711.03 7,940.28 1958 6,935,584.09 3,250,857.26 3,119,747.02 1945 637,108.22 201,054.99 27,622.66 1959 7,232,733.12 2,250,488.93 2,169,819.93 1946 809,336.06 196,559.45 59,155.84 1960 7,530,935.00 2,858,061.00 2,711,136.60 1947 1,184,056.02 409,981.90 117,369.25 Source: MITRAMISS, 27A y 26B, Dirección General de Previsión, Mutuas 1885-1963, La Metalúrgica, 5 legs. Table 7. Claims costs and expenses of La Metalúrgica (in current pesetas) Financial year 1942 Financial year1947 Temporary allowances 109,692.55 Temporary allowances 170,071.15 National Fund Reinsurance 208,073.52 Reinsurance premiums 123,796.05 Fees Dr. García Pelayo 25,426.00 Incapacities* 140,426.59 Fees Dr. Ros Gozálvez 3,000.00 Clinical personnel 56,813.84 Fees Dr. C. Bedoya 875.00 Wound dressing material 9,973.49 Salary clinic auxiliary 7,388.00 Clinics and dispensaries 31,786.00 Bills medical/surgical association CEYDE 13,440.70 Transporting the injured 1,102.45 Sanatorio Nuestra Sra. de Montserrat 80.10 Hospital Provincial 756.25 Clínica Quevedo 55.00 Clínica del Trabajo 1,311.00 Dr. Sánchez Morote (Getafe) 4,272.60 Wound dressing material 6,685.10 Various 428.30 Total claims costs and expenses 381,484.12 Total claims costs and expenses 533,969.57 * The amounts of the reinsured part (217,822.16) and the items corresponding to the Fund for 1946 for pending incapacities (77,395.57) and for 1947 for pending incapacities (160,000) were deducted in the Incapacities section. Source: MITRAMISS, 27A y 26B, Dirección General de Previsión, Mutuas 1885-1963, La Metalúrgica, Memoria del ejercicio 1942 y 1947. 39 1 The Law of Trade Union Unity (Ley de Unidad Sindical) may be consulted in the BOE (Boletín Oficial del Estado, Official State Gazette), 31 January 1940. 2 MITRAMISS Archivo del Ministerio de Trabajo, Migraciones y Seguridad Social [Archive of the Ministry of Labor, Migrations and Social Security], Mutuas 27A y 26B, Dirección General de Previsión, 1885-1963, La Metalúrgica. 3 BOE, 189, 8 July 1939, p. 3729. 4 BOE, 215, 3 August 1939, p. 4224. 5 MITRAMISS, 1968/3185, C-123 D. G. Previsión. Asesoría General y Técnica de Previsión Social del Ministerio de Trabajo (1939-1960), Expedientes accidentes laborales, 1948-1955, 5 legs. 6 BOE, 29, 29 January 1940, 728; BOE, 323, 19 November 1955, pp. 6951-53. 7 Memoria de Instituciones Penitenciarias [Memory of Penitentiary Institutions], 1947, p. 123. 8 El País Newspaper, Los 60 muertos de Monfragüe que Franco ocultó [The 60 dead men in Monfragüe that Franco hid] published on 22 October 2015. Link: https://elpais.com/politica/2015/10/21/actualidad/1445458030_939038.html (accessed in October 2019). 9 BOE, 300, 27 October 1943, pp. 10365-6. 10 BOE, 359, 25 December 1955, 7825 and BOE, 197, 15 July 1956, pp. 4614-34. 11 BOE, 255, 12 September 1942, pp. 7054-5. 12 Archivo INGESA (Archivo del Instituto Nacional de Gestión Sanitaria, National Institute of Health Management Archive), Ponencia sobre CNAT, Actas 1949. Actas del 10 al 29 desde el 11 de enero al 27 de marzo de 1954, Sig. 252. 13 Ibid. 14 Regla 6 de la Orden de 13 de Mayo de 1958 por la que se aprueba la instrucción provisional para la exacción del Impuesto de Sociedades (Rule 6 from the Order 13 May 1958 by which the provisional instruction for the exaction of Corporation Tax is approved). BOE, 117, 16 May 1958, p. 892. 15 BOE 5206, 11 July 1941, p. 5205. 16 MITRAMISS, 27A y 26B, Dirección General de Previsión, Mutuas 1885-1963, La Metalúrgica, 5 legs. 17 Ibid. 18 Ibid. 19 Ibid. 20 BOE, 34, 3 February 1940, pp. 914-24. 21 BOE, 274, 30 September 1944, p. 7260. 22 BOE, 208, 26 July 1944, p. 5707. 23 BOE, 242, 11 February 1950, p. 620. 24 BOE, 77, 18 March 1941, pp. 1873-75. 25 BOE, 361, 26 December 1956, 8103-8106; BOE, 287, 13 October 1956, pp. 6497-8. 26 BOE, 148, 22 June 1959, pp. 8873-5. 27 BOE, 128, 30 May 1961, pp. 8138-46. 28 BOE, 312, 30 December 1963, pp. 18181-90. 40 29 According to data from Eurostat, Link: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database (accessed 10 February 2020).