In recent debates about the relative merits of Janet Yellen
versus Larry Summers for the job of Fed Chair, one of the more interesting
aspects to me has been the gender issues that very quickly rose to the
fore. Sometimes those issues are
explicit, such as when
Ezra Klein mentions the “sexist whispering campaign against Janet Yellen,”
or when Binyamin Appelbaum and Annie Lowrey in
a New York Times headline reference the “gender undertones” of the
debate.
Other times they are more subtle. For example, while not
explicitly tied to gender,
many point to the “insular” and “clubby” nature of the Obama White House, where
influential economic policy positions are held by “a small, close-knit group of
men who have known one another since the Clinton administration, if not
before.” Janet Yellen (along with
other women, according to this narrative) is “on the outside looking in.”
I find statements like those of Christina Romer, former
chief of the White House Council of Economic Advisers under Obama, even more
interesting. Romer elaborates
on the difference between formal inclusion and real influence:
“I was always officially where I should be,” Ms. Romer said
of her White House experience. “When there was a quick meeting on the phone, or
the side meeting, that’s when you felt like maybe business was being done or
maybe I was being left out of things.”
Yellen and Summers also have stylistic and ideological
differences that can be perceived as gendered. For example, Yellen (and, according to former Administration
officials, other senior female economic policy officials) are further to the
left than the Rubinites. Yellen is
considered more focused on unemployment than is Summers, which I suppose could translate somehow into “touchy-feely.” And, Yellen
isn’t “tough,” lacks “gravitas,” is too “soft-spoken,” and “passive.” She may not be able to handle the
inevitable tough fights with Congress. Whatever criticisms one might throw at
Summers, a lack of toughness isn’t likely to make the list, though it is
notable that Ben Bernanke is typically described in terms more similar to those
used to describe Yellen than Summers – a soft-spoken consensus builder.
Naturally, the Obama administration denies that gender would
play any role in selection of the fed chair. The determining factors will instead be the President’s comfort with the candidate, how well he believes he
or she will do the job, and how successful the new chair will be in dealing
with the market and Wall Street. (a point to which I’ll return later)
This debate has intrigued me because it bears so many
similarities to discussions we have heard about corporate board diversity. Corporate boards remain, despite some
recent progress, overwhelmingly male (and white, though that isn’t particularly
relevant to this post). Moreover,
they are frequently characterized as insular, clubby, and cloistered, even by
those who are a part of the club and even when that club includes board members
that bring racial and gender diversity to the table.
In later posts I’ll elaborate on these similarities between
the Yellen-Summers debate and the dialogue surrounding board diversity. Be back soon . . .