Weirdly, the figure from the paper is actually 17%, not 14% (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctp39a/innovation_and_top_income_inequality.pdf http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctp39

Weirdly, the figure from the paper is actually 17%, not 14% (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctp39a/innovation_and_top_income_inequality.pdf http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctp39a/innovation_and_top_income_ineq...). I'm not sure where the WaPo writer got 14% from. Also note that the paper warns that 17% is an underestimate: "Our results are likely to understate the true impact of innovation on top income inequality at the national level for at least two reasons. First, if successful, an innovator from a relatively poor state, is likely to move to a richer state, and therefore not contribute to the top 1% share of her own state. Second, an innovating firm may have some of its owners and top employees located in a state different from that of inventors, in which case the effect of innovativeness on top income inequality will not be fully internalized by the state where the patent is registered. Nevertheless, overall we find a sizeable effect of innovativeness on top income inequality."