Who'll be the next Federal Reserve chief? Janet Yellen gains support.

President Obama has hinted that he will not nominate Ben Bernanke to another term as chairman of the Federal Reserve. Janet Yellen appears to be the experts' front-runner.

Eugene Hoshiko/AP/File
Janet Yellen, vice chairwoman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve (r.), chats at the International Monetary Conference in Shanghai last month. She could be on President Obama's short list to be the next Fed chief.

Ben Bernanke hasn’t announced his own retirement, but the race to succeed him as Federal Reserve chairman has suddenly become very public – complete with dueling opinion articles, White House leaks, and senators angling to say who they’d like in the job.

The latest straw in the wind: Economists in a new survey say they’d like to see the post filled by Janet Yellen, the woman who currently serves as Fed vice chair.

She’s viewed as having a similar policy stance to Mr. Bernanke, and perhaps even more willing to place a high priority on economic growth rather than worry about inflation.

The speculation comes after news reports that President Obama’s short list for nomination also features Larry Summers, a long-time economic official in the Democratic administrations of both Mr. Obama and Bill Clinton.

Obama has hinted strongly that he won’t be nominating Bernanke – who will have served eight years guiding interest rates and monetary policy when his term expires early in 2014.

In an interview published over the weekend, Obama said he’s looking at "some extraordinary candidates" and will announce his pick "over the next several months."

Two new surveys of economists suggest considerable backing for Ms. Yellen.

A CNBC survey of a few dozen economists, investment traders, and market strategists showed both a preference for Yellen and an expectation that Obama will choose her.

In the July poll, 70 percent of respondents said they expect Obama to tap Yellen for the job, and 25 percent expect the nod to go to Mr. Summers. When asked who the president should nominate, views were even starker: 50 percent said Yellen and only 2.5 percent favored Summers.

Bernanke himself and conservative economist John Taylor of Stanford University outscored Summers in the survey.

Summers has a reputation as intellectually brilliant, but with an abrasive personality that may not be well suited to the consensus-building task of leading the Fed’s policy committee.

He has differentiated himself from Yellen and Bernanke, in recent comments, by raising questions about whether the Fed’s current “quantitative easing” has been effective. (This “QE” policy involves buying assets such as Treasury bonds in a bid to keep long-term interest rates low and rev up economic growth.)

Another new survey of economists, by USA Today, found 32 expecting Yellen to be Obama’s pick and four expecting Summers, who was Obama’s first-term economic-policy guru and President Clinton's Treasury secretary.

In a weekend interview in The New York Times, Obama said he wants a Fed leader who will work “in service of the lives of ordinary Americans getting better," and not just focus on tame inflation and stable markets.

“Let's make sure that we're growing the economy,” Obama said.

Yellen and Summers aren’t the only ones around with credentials to be considered for the Fed post, but for now the debate is centering on them.

Whoever he picks, Obama must get his nominee through the Senate confirmation process.

Last week, some Democratic senators wrote a letter to Obama in praise of Yellen. By contrast, some Republicans could object to her as not concerned enough about the risk of inflation to the economy.

In an opinion piece published Monday in The Wall Street Journal, former Fed official Alan Blinder of Princeton University praised Yellen’s monetary touch. He said she helped engineer a “perfect soft landing” for the economy in 1996 – so that the Fed’s inflation-fighting boosts in interest rates didn’t go too far and cause a recession.

“If that sounds easy, it’s not,” Mr. Blinder said.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.