IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cpr/ceprdp/9185.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Why Don't Women Patent?

Author

Listed:
  • Hunt, Jennifer
  • Garant, Jean-Philippe
  • Herman, Hannah
  • Munroe, David

Abstract

We investigate women's underrepresentation among holders of commercialized patents: only 5.5% of holders of such patents are female. Using the National Survey of College Graduates 2003, we find only 7% of the gap in patenting rates is accounted for by women's lower probability of holding any science or engineering degree, because women with such a degree are scarcely more likely to patent than women without. Differences among those without a science or engineering degree account for 15%, while 78% is accounted for by differences among those with a science or engineering degree. For the latter group, we find that women's underrepresentation in engineering and in jobs involving development and design explain much of the gap.

Suggested Citation

  • Hunt, Jennifer & Garant, Jean-Philippe & Herman, Hannah & Munroe, David, 2012. "Why Don't Women Patent?," CEPR Discussion Papers 9185, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    • Handle: RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:9185
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cepr.org/publications/DP9185
    Download Restriction: CEPR Discussion Papers are free to download for our researchers, subscribers and members. If you fall into one of these categories but have trouble downloading our papers, please contact us at subscribers@cepr.org
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jennifer Hunt, 2016. "Why do Women Leave Science and Engineering?," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 69(1), pages 199-226, January.
    2. Fiona Murray & Leigh Graham, 2007. "Buying science and selling science: gender differences in the market for commercial science," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 16(4), pages 657-689, August.
    3. Michael J. Boskin & Lawrence J. Lau, 2000. "Generalized Solow-Neutral Technical Progress and Postwar Economic Growth," NBER Working Papers 8023, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Francine D. Blau & Janet M. Currie & Rachel T. A. Croson & Donna K. Ginther, 2010. "Can Mentoring Help Female Assistant Professors? Interim Results from a Randomized Trial," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(2), pages 348-352, May.
    5. Todd R. Stinebrickner & Ralph Stinebrickner, 2011. "Math or Science? Using Longitudinal Expectations Data to Examine the Process of Choosing a College Major," NBER Working Papers 16869, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Furman, Jeffrey L. & Porter, Michael E. & Stern, Scott, 2002. "The determinants of national innovative capacity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 899-933, August.
    7. Basit Zafar, 2013. "College Major Choice and the Gender Gap," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 48(3), pages 545-595.
    8. Paula Stephan & Shiferaw Gurmu & Albert Sumell & Grant Black, 2007. "Who'S Patenting In The University? Evidence From The Survey Of Doctorate Recipients," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(2), pages 71-99.
    9. Kjersten Whittington & Laurel Smith-Doerr, 2005. "Gender and Commercial Science: Women’s Patenting in the Life Sciences," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 30(4), pages 355-370, October.
    10. Jerry Thursby & Marie Thursby, 2005. "Gender Patterns of Research and Licensing Activity of Science and Engineering Faculty," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 30(4), pages 343-353, October.
    11. Lisa D. Cook & Chaleampong Kongcharoen, 2010. "The Idea Gap in Pink and Black," NBER Working Papers 16331, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. Women do not patent
      by Economic Logician in Economic Logic on 2012-03-13 20:23:00

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jennifer Hunt, 2016. "Why do Women Leave Science and Engineering?," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 69(1), pages 199-226, January.
    2. Albert N. Link & Martijn Hasselt, 2020. "Exploring the impact of R&D on patenting activity in small women-owned and minority-owned entrepreneurial firms," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 54(4), pages 1061-1066, April.
    3. Cohle, Zachary & Ortega, Alberto, 2023. "The effect of the opioid crisis on patenting," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 214(C), pages 493-521.
    4. Yannu Zheng & Olof Ejermo, 2015. "How do the foreign-born perform in inventive activity? Evidence from Sweden," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 28(3), pages 659-695, July.
    5. Jung, Taehyun & Ejermo, Olof, 2014. "Demographic patterns and trends in patenting: Gender, age, and education of inventors," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 110-124.
    6. Thomas Breda & Son Thierry Ly, 2012. "Do Professors Really Perpetuate the Gender Gap in Science? Evidence from a Natural Experiment in a French Higher Education Institution," CEE Discussion Papers 0138, Centre for the Economics of Education, LSE.
    7. Gema Lax Martínez & Julio Raffo & Kaori Saito, 2016. "Identifying the Gender of PCT inventors," WIPO Economic Research Working Papers 33, World Intellectual Property Organization - Economics and Statistics Division.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hunt, Jennifer & Garant, Jean-Philippe & Herman, Hannah & Munroe, David J., 2013. "Why are women underrepresented amongst patentees?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 831-843.
    2. Maria Abreu & Vadim Grinevich, 2017. "Gender patterns in academic entrepreneurship," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(4), pages 763-794, August.
    3. Whittington, Kjersten Bunker, 2018. "“A tie is a tie? Gender and network positioning in life science inventor collaboration”," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 511-526.
    4. Abreu, Maria & Grinevich, Vadim, 2013. "The nature of academic entrepreneurship in the UK: Widening the focus on entrepreneurial activities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 408-422.
    5. Jussi Heikkilä, 2019. "IPR gender gaps: a first look at utility model, design right and trademark filings," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 869-883, March.
    6. Meng, Yu, 2016. "Collaboration patterns and patenting: Exploring gender distinctions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 56-67.
    7. Dirk Dohse & Rajeev K. Goel & Devrim Göktepe‐Hultén, 2021. "Paths academic scientists take to entrepreneurship: Disaggregating direct and indirect influences," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(7), pages 1740-1753, October.
    8. Jennifer Hunt, 2016. "Why do Women Leave Science and Engineering?," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 69(1), pages 199-226, January.
    9. Yu Meng, 2018. "Gender distinctions in patenting: Does nanotechnology make a difference?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 971-992, March.
    10. Jeannette Colyvas & Kaisa Snellman & Janet Bercovitz & Maryann Feldman, 2012. "Disentangling effort and performance: a renewed look at gender differences in commercializing medical school research," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 37(4), pages 478-489, August.
    11. Scott Shane & Sharon Dolmans & Joseph Jankowski & Isabelle Reymen & A. Romme, 2015. "Academic entrepreneurship: Which inventors do technology licensing officers prefer for spinoffs?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 273-292, April.
    12. Walter, Sascha G. & Schmidt, Arne & Walter, Achim, 2010. "The Patenting Behavior of Academic Founders," EconStor Preprints 37083, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    13. Muscio, Alessandro & Vallanti, Giovanna, 2024. "The gender gap in PhD entrepreneurship: Why balancing employment in academia really matters," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(1).
    14. Haeussler, Carolin & Colyvas, Jeannette A., 2011. "Breaking the Ivory Tower: Academic Entrepreneurship in the Life Sciences in UK and Germany," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 41-54, February.
    15. Halilem, Norrin & De Silva, Muthu & Amara, Nabil, 2022. "Fairly assessing unfairness: An exploration of gender disparities in informal entrepreneurship amongst academics in business schools," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    16. Desai, Pranav, 2021. "Essays in corporate finance and innovation," Other publications TiSEM 1ef5fdc6-9c52-43df-be1a-d, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    17. Tartari, Valentina & Salter, Ammon, 2015. "The engagement gap:," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 1176-1191.
    18. Alex Bell & Raj Chetty & Xavier Jaravel & Neviana Petkova & John Van Reenen, 2019. "Who Becomes an Inventor in America? The Importance of Exposure to Innovation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 134(2), pages 647-713.
    19. Delaney, Judith M. & Devereux, Paul J., 2019. "Understanding gender differences in STEM: Evidence from college applications✰," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 219-238.
    20. Julian Kolev & Yuly Fuentes-Medel & Fiona Murray, 2019. "Is Blinded Review Enough? How Gendered Outcomes Arise Even Under Anonymous Evaluation," NBER Working Papers 25759, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Gender; Innovation;

    JEL classification:

    • J15 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Economics of Minorities, Races, Indigenous Peoples, and Immigrants; Non-labor Discrimination
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:9185. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cepr.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.