Sep 222010

A reader asks the following about Larry Summers:

The media is saying that Larry is leaving the White House in part because his leave from Harvard is almost up and if he stayed away longer, he’d have to reapply for tenure. From your own experience, is that probably true? I thought universities routinely relaxed such policies for star academics like you and Larry. Also, how prestigious is it to be a university professor?

Different universities have different policies regarding faculty leave for policy jobs, and different degrees of enforcement. Harvard allows two years of leave, and it has the reputation of enforcing the rule rather strictly. I can imagine that Larry could have negotiated an extra semester of leave, but I would have been surprised if the university had extended his leave much beyond that. (FYI, I left my CEA job in February 2005 after being in Washington for precisely two years.)

Also, being a university professor is quite a good deal.  Top pay with maximum flexibility regarding teaching etc.  As I understand it, you do pretty much whatever you want.

Would Larry have been rehired by Harvard if he resigned and stayed another couple of years in Washington?  Unclear.  The pro case for rehiring would be that Larry is one of the smartest guys around and has a great deal of fascinating experience to share with students.  The con case would be that he has been out of the academic research game for quite a while and that in a time of reduced financial resources, faculty slots should be devoted to younger scholars rather than potentially extinct volcanoes.  Ironically, if Larry were on the faculty voting on this matter, the con case is the kind of argument he might have made.

So, while I am sure that Larry’s decision had various inputs, Harvard’s leave policy was very plausibly one of them.

I can also say that ec 10 students will likely be among the beneficiaries of Larry’s return.  Larry was a regular guest lecturer in the course, and his lectures were always well received.   He does a great job illustrating the connections between economic theory and economic reality.

Aug 222010

Last week, my friend Phill Swagel attended an event to hear about the future of policy toward housing finance.  He sends along the following.  (By the way, here is Phill’s own proposal for GSE reform.)

Notes from the Sixth Row: The Treasury-HUD GSE Conference

Phillip Swagel

I took away four main points from Tuesday’s Treasury-HUD GSE conference:

Hints of reform. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said that the administration supported fundamental GSE reform but with still a government guarantee for housing finance in some form. The GSE portfolios, however, would disappear. None of this is a surprise, but it was still novel—especially in contrast with past policy efforts such as stimulus and healthcare, where the administration allowed the Congress to take the lead on policy formation.

Industry participants love government guarantees. Conference participants from industries involved with the financing and construction of homes assert that no American will ever buy a home again if the government does not provide a full credit guarantee against the financial market consequences of people defaulting on their mortgages. And that guarantee needs a fair (that is, low) price. Bill Gross made some news in calling for full nationalization of housing finance and complete guarantees on mortgage capital. He prefaced this by saying that he was speaking on behalf of public policy and not his firm. Mr. Gross is smart and was exceedingly public-minded during the financial crisis (even, yes, while profiting from some astute investment calls). There is no doubt that he means well. But it’s scary to think about what he might suggest when he speaks for his book of business instead of the public interest.

Blowback from the left. The administration is scared of its own shadow with respect to flak from the left—the White House staffer’s introductory remarks were an awkward ode to inclusion and conference guidelines such as time limits went out the window when advocates of affordable housing subsidies were speaking (As a note, I very much support these subsidies and think that an important element of GSE reform is to make the subsidies more effective. But this still does not mean that the people making that point should have had carte blanche to long-talk while avoiding answering direct questions.) Amidst the long-talking, it turns out that there is good reason for the administration’s trembling. To the limited extent that advocates of affordable/low-income housing participated in the conference, they vehemently opposed scaling back any form of government support, including reducing the activities of the portfolios. It was impossible to tell what the affordable advocates were for other than “more.” The administration’s GSE reform plan could come down on stone tablets from Mt. Sinai – and still be attacked by the advocate community as “not enough.” GSE reform thus represents yet another conflict brewing between the administration and its frenemies in the “professional” left. And yet the President’s political tactics of late center on demonizing the moderate/responsible Republicans (“privatizers”) with whom he might form a centrist coalition to actually move forward with a housing finance overhaul. GSE reform could be a long ways off—until we have a President who seeks to lead in a bipartisan fashion.

Settle in; this is going to be a long process. Yesterday’s conference was a show of attention to the issue but not more. And next on the agenda are several regional conferences—perhaps the hotel and travel spending is a form of stimulus (or better—it’s time for Congress to shut off Treasury’s unlimited authority to spend money through the Office of Financial Stability). The wheels of GSE reform are turning, but the vehicle is moving forward at a crawl.

Aug 102010

Chapter 2 of my favorite textbook describes how economists play a role in the making of public policy.  If students want a more detailed description of the White House policy process, a good place to look is this recent post by Keith Hennessey.

Aug 062010

CEA Chair Christy Romer is leaving the White House.

From my own experience in that job, I know she must be experiencing mixed emotions.  On the one hand,  it is an exhilarating experience to be a member of a White House team, a part of history, and the leader of a staff of smart, hard-working economists at the CEA.  On the other hand, in jobs like this, one loses a great deal of autonomy.  People who choose academia as a career often do so because they enjoy the personal and intellectual freedom it offers.  Having spent two years without it, I appreciate that freedom all the more.  I bet Christy will feel the same, after she recovers from Beltway decompression.

Apr 072010

The media is abuzz with stories that Larry Summers is unhappy and may be leaving the Obama administration: click here, here, here, and here.

I have no idea if any of this speculation is true.  (The only way I would know is if Larry said something to me about it, and then I wouldn’t be talking about it on my blog.  But he hasn’t, so I can.)  What I do know is that it would be unfortunate for the country if Larry left.  I am obviously not privy to internal discussions at the White House, but I bet that, more often than not, Larry is pushing policy in a more moderate and more sensible direction.

On the other hand, a loss for the nation could be a gain for ec 10 students.  Before he left for the White House, Larry was a regular and popular guest lecturer.  We would be delighted to have him back.

© 2011 Random Observations for Students of Economics Random Observations for Students of Economics