Abstract
In this paper we show that the patenting behavior of innovators is correlated with the patenting behavior of their fathers. Our argument for exploring this relationship stems from established theories of entrepreneurial behavior, specifically theories on intergenerational behavior. Our empirical analyses are based on survey data collected from MIT’s Technology Review (TR) winners.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The seminal study of the propensity to patent at the firm and line of business level is by Scherer (1983).
Relatedly, Bates (1985) showed a positive relationship between education and minority enterprise profitability.
As an indication of the exploratory nature of our study, neither Cohen (2010) nor Nagaoka et al. (2010) focus on the propensity of innovators to patent in their contemporary reviews of the patent literature. Perhaps this void has been the result of the absence of a framework for considering such behavior and/or the lack of appropriate micro data.
An earlier version of this paper was published as an NBER Working Paper. See Link and Ruhm (2011a).
Also, see Ruhm (1988) for a more general framework where human capital investments are correlated across generations because the costs of obtaining such training are negatively correlated with corresponding parental investments.
Eli Whitney’s proclivity to invent can be traced to the time he spent imitating his father’s craftsmanship. “Whitney was a gifted mathematician and applied himself regularly in his father’s workshop. This is obviously where the story of Eli Whitney begins. Invention, so an old saying goes, is the besetting sin of the mechanic” (Hughes 1965, p. 128).
Goertzel and Goertzel (1976); Helson (1999), and others have argued that the developmental experiences of individuals, including parental guidance and family structure, are correlated with the demonstrated creativeness of individuals. Simply, the backgrounds of individuals, or their intergenerational roots, establish the trajectory for their creative development (Kozbelt et al. 2010), and, following Jones (2009), a trajectory is requisite for an innovative individual to be successful in his/her patenting endeavor(s).
Relegated to the error term are the many other factors that constitute an innovator’s resources and capabilities. Doepke and Zilibotti (2008) argued that parents’ incentives for forming their preferences depends on economic conditions, but our database is, for example, void of such economic variables as discussed below.
TR100 to TR35 coincided with a 2005 editorial change. See Link and Welsh (forthcoming) for a similar description of the TR database and data reduction process
See, http://www.technologyreview.com/article/38322. For a list of the 2011 TR35 judges see, http://www.technologyreview.com/article/38410/?a=f.
For example, the response rate for the National Research Council’s (NRC 2009) congressionally mandated study of NASA Small Business Innovation Research award recipient firms was only 23 %.
The estimates presented in the table are average marginal effects.
Baer and Kaufman (2008) have argued that there are no gender differences in the creativity of individuals, based on traditional tools for measuring creativity. But, as reviewed by Shane (2003), intergenerational occupational choices for self-employment are stronger among males. Tsukahara (2007) shows this also to be the case in Japan across most occupations.
We thank an anonymous referee for pointing out this possibility.
These three individuals account for exactly half (55 of 110) patents in our sample.
The one exception is that neither of the two respondents holding four patents had a father with a patent.
References
Aldrich, H. E., & Kim, P. H. (2007). A life course perspective on occupational inheritance: Self-employed parents and their children. In M. Ruef & M. Lounsbury (Eds.), Research in the sociology of organizations (pp. 33–82). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.
Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2008). Gender differences in creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 42, 75–106.
Bates, T. (1985). Entrepreneur human capital endowments and minority business viability. Journal of Human Resources, 20, 540–554.
Benditt, J. (1999). 100 hot zones. Technology Review, November/December, 12.
Blanchflower, D. G., & Oswald, A. J. (1998). What makes an entrepreneur? Journal of Labor Economics, 16, 26–60.
Cohen, W. M. (2010). Fifty years of empirical studies of innovative activity and performance. In B. H. Hall & N. Rosenberg (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of innovation (pp. 129–213). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Doepke, M., & Zilibotti, F. (2008). Occupational choice and the spirit of capitalism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 123, 747–793.
Elder, G. H. (1999). Children of the great depression: Social change in life experience. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Goertzel, V., & Goertzel, M. G. (1976). Cradles of eminence. Boston: Little Brown.
Helson, R. (1999). A longitudinal study of creative personality in women. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 89–101.
Hughes, R. T. (1965). The vital few: The entrepreneur & American economic progress. New York: Oxford University Press.
Jones, B. F. (2009). The burden of knowledge and the “death of the renaissance man”: Is innovation getting harder. Review of Economic Studies, 76, 283–317.
Kozbelt, A., Beghetto, R. A., & Runco, M. A. (2010). Theories of creativity. In J. C. Kauffman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lentz, B. F., & Laband, D. N. (1990). Entrepreneurial success and occupational inheritance among proprietors. Canadian Journal of Economics, 23, 563–579.
Link, A. N., & Ruhm, C. J. (2011a). Creativity and the family tree: Human capital endowments and the propensity of entrepreneurs to patent. NBER Working Paper 17441, September.
Link, A. N., & Ruhm, C. J. (2011b). Public knowledge, private knowledge: The intellectual capital of entrepreneurs. Small Business Economics, 36, 1–14.
Link, A. N., & Welsh, D. H. B. (forthcoming). From laboratory to market: On the propensity of young inventors to form a new business. Small Business Economics. doi:10.1007/s 11187-011-9345-4.
Nagaoka, S., Motohashi, K., & Goto, A. (2010). Patent statistics as an innovation indicator. In B. H. Hall & N. Rosenberg (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of innovation (pp. 1084–1127). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
National Research Council. (2009). An assessment of the Small Business Innovation Research Program at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Nicolaou, N., Shane, S., Cherkas, L., Hunkin, J., & Spector, T. D. (2008). Is the tendency to engage in entrepreneurship genetic? Management Science, 54, 167–179.
Ruhm, C. J. (1988). When equal opportunity is not enough: Training costs and intergenerational inequality. Journal of Human Resources, 23, 155–172.
Scherer, F. M. (1983). The propensity to patent. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 1, 107–128.
Shane, S. (2003). A general theory of entrepreneurship: The individual-opportunity nexus. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Storey, D. J. (1994). Understanding the small business sector. London: Routledge.
Tsukahara, I. (2007). The effect of family background on occupational choice. Labour, 21, 871–890.
Acknowledgments
Ruhm thanks the University of Virginia Bankard Fund for providing financial support for this research.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Link, A.N., Ruhm, C.J. Fathers’ patenting behavior and the propensity of offspring to patent: an intergenerational analysis. J Technol Transf 38, 332–340 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-012-9277-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-012-9277-4