People are only able to innovate if they have the right to benefit from their inventions. Until the second part of the 19th century in America, women’s right to patent – and benefit from – their innovations was restricted. In new research, Ruveyda Nur Gozen looks at how the property rights reforms which occurred in some US states in the mid-19th century allowed women to benefit from their assets and innovations. She finds that women in these states were more likely to innovate breakthrough, new and improved household appliances and that these innovations did not displace those by men. Knowledge and education were also crucial in fostering innovation and independent property rights further allowed women to accumulate more wealth, increasing the possibility to make riskier investments.
The underrepresentation of disadvantaged groups, particularly women, in the innovation process and entrepreneurial activities is an ongoing issue across the globe. Despite making up 50 percent of the population, women consistently participate less than men in entrepreneurial activities and produce fewer innovations. In some societies, women still face significant barriers, such as lacking the legal rights to run businesses independently, own property, or even travel without their husbands’ consent.
But how do strong economic rights and equal opportunities for women impact participation in innovation, influence the direction of technology, and contribute to the overall innovation dynamism of an economy?
Women’s entrepreneurial rights in the 19th century
To explore this question, let’s examine an important era in the history of the United States. In the 19th century, women were not recognized as independent economic actors, with their skills largely confined to household production. Marriage further restricted their rights, including the ability to own or control any property and operate a business—rights that were instead held by their husbands.
In addition to tangible property such as houses and farms, women also had restricted rights in terms of using intangible property independently such as patents (the right for their owner to exclusively make or market an invention). Although women were legally allowed to apply and get patents for their inventions, they faced significant barriers in leveraging these patents economically. Women were often unable to sue for infringement, run a business independently, or fully capitalize on the economic advantages of their patents. This lopsidedness—where women could patent but not effectively protect or monetize their inventions—substantially reduced the economic incentives and returns associated with entrepreneurial and innovative activities.
The importance of well-defined property rights cannot be overstated; securing the right to maintain monopoly rents from inventions – where they can charge more for their product as the sole supplier – is as a powerful incentive to patent new innovations. Anecdotal evidence highlighting the challenges of property rights for women during this period can be found in newspaper archives, where journalists documented the problems that women faced in case of getting a patent:
Legal reforms gave women new economic incentives and rights
In the second half of the 19th century, significant legislative changes were enacted through laws like New York State’s Married Women Property Acts. These laws allowed women to own and control property, enter contracts, engage in business, and independently retain their labor and capital earnings. Crucially, these rights applied regardless of a woman’s marital status, enabling them to use their assets as they saw fit.
These legal reforms opened new avenues for women to contribute to technological progress by providing economic incentives and rights that had previously been inaccessible. But how can we measure innovations? While not all innovations are patented, patents serve as a critical and widely used data source by economists to gauge innovative activity. With this in mind, I used the Comprehensive Universe of US Patents (CUSP), which is one of the richest patent datasets. However, since gender information is not available in patent data, women inventors are identified based on name identification, using popular male and female names from the 19th century.
Courtesy of the Smithsonian Libraries and Archives
When comparing women in states that adopted these property rights laws to those in states that did not, we see a significant increase in innovations by women, without displacing those by men. This suggests that including a previously disadvantaged group in the innovation process not only boosts innovation within that group but also contributes to the overall volume of innovations in the economy. Moreover, women were just as innovative as men in terms of breakthrough innovations (those innovations which are most dissimilar from previous patents but are cited more by subsequent patents). On average, 1 out of 5 patents by women represented novel or breakthrough innovations—those that departed from previous inventions and influenced future inventors over the following decade.
Women and household innovations
But what did women invent during this period, and in which directions did their technological contributions flow? Based on our historical assumptions, we might expect women to have focused primarily on innovations related to textiles or clothing. However, when we examine the technology classes, we find that women were more actively involved in innovations related to household appliances—areas requiring mechanical engineering knowledge—such as dishwashers, refrigerators, ovens, and more. Even more notably, the share of breakthrough innovations in fields like human necessities, physics, and mechanical engineering by women was comparable to that of men. This diversity in women’s innovations challenges traditional assumptions and highlights their significant, yet often overlooked, role in advancing a wide range of technological fields.
To give an example, the following patent belongs to Josephine Cochrane who is the inventor of the first successful dishwasher, patented in 1886. She was born in Ohio to an inventor and engineer father and the granddaughter of an inventor of the first steamboat. However, she could not pursue higher education and got married when she was 19 and eventually had children. After her husband passed away in 1883, she inherited a huge debt and had no income.
Cochrane was 45 when she invented the dishwasher. She also presented her work and won an award at the World’s Columbian Exposition in Chicago in 1893. After her successful invention, she established Cochrane’s Crescent Washing Machine Company to produce this machine. She became very successful as there was a growing demand for her invention. Her company later became KitchenAid, part of the Whirlpool Corporation.
As shown in this example, one cannot emphasize enough the importance of revealing hidden talents in an economy by providing economic incentives. An idea transformed into an invention, a patent, and a corporation that not only generated employment and an income stream but also influenced future inventors at large.
The importance of education and a level playing field
My findings highlight several broader implications for understanding the role of institutional arrangements and participation of women in innovation. First, 19th-century women inventors had higher levels of human capital accumulation compared to those who were not inventors, indicating that knowledge and education were crucial in fostering innovation. These findings align with contemporary studies which suggest that higher levels of education are essential for creating innovations. Moreover, such independent rights further allowed women to accumulate more wealth that could alleviate financial restrictions that inventors may face as innovations are often risky investments.
Second, creating an even playing field by eliminating social, economic, or institutional barriers offers a vital opportunity to uncover hidden or lost talents within an economy. The fact that almost 60 percent of women inventors were married highlights the significance of independent property rights and the potential impact of compulsory education policies for children, which can further support women’s participation in innovation.
It’s important to note that persistent gender inequality, norms, and racism during this period might also have affected who was able to benefit from their inventions. A recent study found far lower patenting rates among Black Americans in the South compared to those in the North. Consequently, the impact of property rights may differ for Black women due to racial discrimination, marginalization, and a lack of institutional trust. This is supported in my analysis, which found that almost 99 percent of women inventors were white in the 19th century, suggesting that the property rights I mentioned did not have the same effect for Black women compared to white women in the 19th century.
How property rights reforms can drive innovation
The study of women’s property rights in the 19th century provides valuable insights into how legal and economic reforms can drive innovation. By granting women the right to own and control property, the Married Women’s Property Acts not only empowered women but also led to significant increases in both the quantity and quality of innovations. This historical perspective emphasizes the importance of inclusive policies that offer equal opportunities for all individuals to contribute to economic progress and technological advancement.
As we continue to strive for a more equitable society, the lessons from the 19th century remain highly relevant today. Ensuring that disadvantaged groups have the rights and resources necessary to innovate is not just a matter of fairness but also a critical driver of economic growth and technological progress.
- This article is based on the CEP discussion paper, “Property rights and innovation dynamism: The role of women”.
- Please read our comments policy before commenting.
- Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of USAPP – American Politics and Policy, nor the London School of Economics.
- Shortened URL for this post: https://wp.me/p3I2YF-ecs
