IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v46y2019i5p679-688..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Defence spending and women in research: A cross-country comparison

Author

Listed:
  • Tyler Saxon
  • Stephan Weiler

Abstract

This article explores whether greater levels of national defence spending effectively push women away from research careers in science and engineering due to the biases that defence spending can foster in research and development (R&D) institutions. Defence R&D spending shapes the orientation of R&D both through the direct subsidisation of R&D, as well as through procurement, which creates demand for military technologies. These biases created by defence spending potentially alter and shape career tracks in ways that may be more antithetical to feminine gender norms and job values than those of men, thus reducing women’s participation in research careers and reducing gender diversity among developers of new technology. We evaluate this gender asymmetry empirically through a panel dataset of thirty-three nations. Our findings indicate that greater levels of defence spending are indeed associated with lower participation of women in research careers, particularly in government and higher education.

Suggested Citation

  • Tyler Saxon & Stephan Weiler, 2019. "Defence spending and women in research: A cross-country comparison," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 46(5), pages 679-688.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:46:y:2019:i:5:p:679-688.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scz021
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    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:oup:scippl:v:46:y:2019:i:5:p:679-688.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    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.