Found this article, which goes into some detail and includes links to more info:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2013/04/janet-yellen-ben-bernanke-federal-reserve-next-chair.html
Som snips from it:
In central banking, people who worry primarily about inflation are often referred to as “hawks” and those who prioritize unemployment are called “doves.” If Obama does appoint Yellen to chair the Fed, she will arguably be the most dovish figure to head the central bank since Marriner Eccles, the Mormon banker whom F.D.R. appointed during the depths of the Great Depression. As recently as last month, Yellen gave a speech to the National Association for Business Economics in which she made a provisional case for sticking with an expansionary policy even after the headline unemployment rate comes down, noting, “A decline in the unemployment rate could, for example, primarily reflect the exit from the labor force of discouraged job seekers.”
Don’t get me wrong: Yellen is no radical. In many ways, she strikes me as a traditional American Keynesian—a modern representative of the breed that stretches back through Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman (in his later incarnation) to James Tobin, Robert Solow, and Walter Heller, and, from the founding generation, to Paul Samuelson and Alvin Hansen. Contrary to what some of its conservative critics claim, American Keynesianism isn’t a left-wing creed: like John Maynard Keynes himself, it seeks to preserve the system rather than overthrow it. But in order to do this, it relies on a program of active management of the economy, and using economic models to aid that process.
Shaped by their experiences in the Great Depression, many early U.S. Keynesians saw economics not just as a policy science, but as a blueprint for using the state to prevent slumps and to further social progress. Seeking to remedy market failures, they championed countercyclical monetary and fiscal policies (including, when necessary, sizable stimulus programs), public investments in infrastructure and education, progressive taxation, and a strong social safety net. Simply relying on the market wouldn’t get it done—that was their message.
Yellen’s recent policy pronouncements, and her earlier academic work, are very much in this tradition. Perhaps her most famous paper, which she co-wrote in 1986 with her husband, George Akerlof, a Nobel-winning economist, was about the theory of “efficiency wages.” It argued that, contrary to the free-market model, lower wages can lead to higher unemployment. Ten years later, Yellen and Akerlof challenged the notion that generous welfare benefits were responsible for a surge in illegitimate births, especially in the minority population. The real reason there were more unwed mothers, Yellen and Akerlof argued, was a change in social attitudes, particularly the decline of “shotgun marriages.” If their theory was right, they concluded, “[C]uts in welfare benefits will have little effect on out-of-wedlock births, serving mainly to lower the standard of living of the country’s poorest children. Better family planning education, birth control advice, and requirements forcing fathers to pay child support are more promising policies to reduce out-of-wedlock births.”
Certainly sounds like a better choice than Summers.
There's also this:
Yellen to Washington, D.C.: Fiscal Austerity Slows Recovery
http://www.aflcio.org/Blog/Economy/Yellen-to-Washington-D.C.-Fiscal-Austerity-Slows-Recovery
= new reply since forum marked as read
