The Branches of Large Electricity Companies in Portugal: From Trade to the Transfer and Adaptation of Technology (20th Century)

In the last decade of the 19th and first decades of the 20th century there was a movement of capital and engineers from the central and northern Europe to the countries of southern Europe and other continents. Large companies sought to obtain concessions and establish branches in Portugal, favouring the circulation of technical knowledge and transfer of technology for Portuguese industry. Among the various examples of the representatives of foreign companies in Portugal we find Jayme da Costa Ltd. established in 1916 in Lisbon, which was a branch of the Swedish company ASEA, as well as STAAL, ATLAS DIESEL (Sweden), Landis & GYR (Switzerland), Electro Helios, etc.. Another example is EFACEC a company founded in 1948 in Porto, that was a partnership between the Portuguese company CUF – Companhia União Fabril, and ACEC – Ateliers de Constructions Électriques de Charleroi and a small entreprise Electro-Moderna Ldª. This enterprise started the industrial production of electric motors and transformers, and later on acquired a substantial share of the national production of electrical equipment. Using Estatística das Instalações Elétricas em Portugal (Statistics on Electrical Installations in Portugal) from 1928 until 1950 we can identify the foreign enterprises acting in the Portuguese market: Siemens, B.B.C, ASEA, Oerlikon, etc. We can also establish a relationship between the development of the electric network and the growth of production and consumption of electricity in the principal urban centres. Finally we see how foreign firms were a stimulus to the creation of national enterprises, especially those of small scale, in Portugal.

Double trouble: French colonialism in Morocco and the early history of the Pasteur institutes of Tangier and Casablanca (1895-1932)

Morocco was the last North African country in which a Pasteur institute was created, nearly two decades later than in Tunisia and Algeria. In fact, two institutes were opened, the first in Tangier in 1913 and the second in Casablanca in 1932. This duplication, far from being a measure of success, was the material expression of the troubles Pastorians had experienced in getting a solid foothold in the country since the late 19th century. These problems partly derived from the pre-existence of a modest Spanish-Moroccan bacteriological tradition, developed since the late 1880s within the framework of the Sanitary Council and Hygiene Commission of Tangier, and partly from the uncoordinated nature of the initiatives launched from Paris and Algiers. Although a Pasteur Institute was finally established, with Paul Remlinger as director, the failure of France to impose its colonial rule over the whole country, symbolized by the establishment of an international regime in Tangier, resulted in the creation of a second centre in Casablanca. While elucidating many hitherto unclear facts about the entangled origins of both institutes, the author points to the solidity of the previously independent Moroccan state as a major factor behind the troubled translation of Pastorianism to Morocco. Systematically dismissed or downplayed by colonial and postcolonial historiography, this solidity disrupted the French takeover of the country and therefore Pastorian expectations.