Another Reason Janet Yellen Should Run the Fed

Gender matters.

Economist Janet Yellen is a top contender to run the Federal Reserve, America's central bank.Dan Honda/Contra Costa Times/ZUMAPress

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Update, January 6, 2014: On Monday, the Senate voted 56 to 26 to confirm Yellen as chair of the Federal Reserve.

Update, October 9, 2013: On Wednesday, Obama will nominate Janet Yellen as chair of the Federal Reserve. She is set to become “the most powerful woman in American history.”

If President Barack Obama nominates Janet Yellen, the second-ranking official at the Federal Reserve, to be the next chairman of the central bank, she would be the first woman to ever occupy the post. This fact—and reports that Obama is considering former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers for the same post—has prompted editorials worrying that Yellen wouldn’t be up to the job, as well as more subtle attacks on her lack of “gravitas.”

Although Obama has spoken of the importance of diversity in his administration, his inner economic team is a boys’ club, says Sheila Bair, a former head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation who has pushed publicly for Obama to pick Yellen to run the Fed. The top administration jobs that most affect the financial industry, Bair explains, are the chair of the Fed, the secretary of the Treasury, the head of the New York Federal Reserve, and the comptroller of the currency. And although there have been a few women in other top economic policy positions in the Obama administration, none of these big four spots has ever been filled by a woman.

“This has been a historical trend which Obama has good opportunity to break,” Bair says. Bringing in a woman would be more than just symbolic. Yellen breaking the gender barrier in the administration’s top economic circles could have practical implications, too. Many women who have worked in or with the administration in senior economic policy positions—including Bair, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and Christina Romer—have said publicly they felt excluded and marginalized by men in the decision-making process. Having a lady heading the Fed could change that.

Yellen running the Fed could also be important to women in economics. Only about a third of the people entering Ph.D. programs in economics are women, and only about 10 percent of all full-time tenured economics professors in the country are female. “There’s a kind of culture within the world of economics and finance which is very testosterone-driven,” says Margaret Blair, an economist at Vanderbilt University School of Law. Lynn Stout, a professor of corporate and business law at Cornell University, agrees. “Economists are not among most friendly to women when comes to a culture,” she says.

Yellen could help shift the economics profession away from being an “old boys’ club,” Stout says. “It would be encouragement to other women who might be more willing to put up with the hazing they generally receive when they try to study economics at the Ph.D. level…I think the symbolism is huge.”

Yellen is immensely qualified to run the Fed. She’s worked there for nearly two decades, was chair of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Clinton, and previously had an academic career at the University of California-Berkeley. And she knows what she’s talking about. A recent study also found that Yellen was the Fed policymaker who was most often right between 2009 and 2012. The Wall Street Journal recently scored 14 Fed policymakers on 700 predictions they made on growth, jobs, and inflation during the recovery, and found that the “most accurate forecasts overall came from Ms. Yellen.”

Perhaps the best argument for appointing Yellen is the alternative. Summers—who is perhaps most famous for his comments at a 2005 economics conference implying that women may be “innate[ly]” less intelligent than men—is a lifelong deregulator who helped cause the financial collapse. Yellen was one of the only top Fed policymakers who predicted the housing crisis. In 2005, she warned that “house prices are abnormally high—that there is a ‘bubble’ element.” Summers at the time said the idea was based on a “Luddite premise.

Summers also has been accused of bullying those who don’t share his position. In 2008, he reportedly shot down Romer, who had just been appointed chief White House economist, when she proposed a larger stimulus than he thought was practical. In the 1990s, he reportedly yelled at Brooksley Born, the former head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, when she proposed regulating the complex financial products called derivatives that ended up contributing to the financial crisis.

Yellen’s reputation, on the other hand, “is one of collegiality,” says Sheila Bair. “I can only assume she would be much more inclusive [than Summers].”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate