Drawing from the literature on deliberative conditions, we analyze thirty years of verbatim transcripts of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). The transcripts provide a rare opportunity for the systematic empirical analysis of deliberative conditions. The importance of the FOMC, and its recent policy failures, makes the case particularly interesting. Deliberative scholars argue that deliberation should occur in a setting where participants are free and equal. Using a unique set of deliberative measures, our model shows that FOMC members do enjoy deliberative freedom. In contrast, we find inequalities in rates of participation. Some deviation from equality may be reasonable. However, we demonstrate a sustained pattern of gender inequality in participation that could in turn influence the FOMC’s policy choices and which is difficult to justify on any grounds.
AlesinaAlbertoGiulianoPaola. 2009. “Preferences for Redistribution.” Working Paper No. 14825, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge. http://www.nber.org/papers/w14825.pdf.
2.
BaileyAndrewSchonhardt-BaileyCheryl. 2006. “Is the Fed Held Accountable, an Empirical Investigation of Congressional Oversight of Monetary Policy.” Paper presented at the History of Congress Conference, Yale University, New Haven, May.
3.
BarabasJason. 2004. “How Deliberation Affects Policy Opinions.” American Political Science Review98:687–701.
4.
BeckThorstenBehrPatrickGuttlerAndre. 2013. “Gender and Banking: Are Women Better Loan Officers?” Review of Finance17:1279–321.
5.
BellucciAndreaBorisovAlexanderZazzaroAlberto. 2010. “Does Gender Matter in Bank-Firm Relationships? Evidence from Small Business Lending.” Journal of Banking & Finance34:2968–984.
6.
BlinderAlan. 2004. The Quiet Revolution: Central Banking Goes Modern. New Haven: Yale University Press.
7.
BohmanJames. 1996. Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity, and Democracy. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
8.
BohmanJames. 1999. “Deliberative Democracy and Effective Social Freedom.” In Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics, edited by BohmanJamesRehgWilliam, 321–48. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
9.
BolzendahlCatherine. 2011. “Beyond the Big Picture: Gender Influence on Disaggregated and Domain-Specific Measures of Social Spending, 1980–1999.” Politics & Gender1:35–70.
10.
ChambersSimone. 2004. “Behind Closed Doors: Publicity, Secrecy, and the Quality of Deliberation.” The Journal of Political Philosophy12:389–410.
11.
ChappellHenryMcGregorRob RoyVermilyeaTodd. 2005. Committee Decisions on Monetary Policy: Evidence from Historical Records of the Federal Open Market Committee. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
12.
ChappellHenryMcGregorRob RoyVermilyeaTodd. 2012. “Deliberation and Learning in Monetary Policy Committees.” Economic Inquiry50:839–47.
13.
CohenJoshua. 1986. “An Epistemic Conception of Democracy.” Ethics97:26–38.
14.
CohenJoshua. 1989. “Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy.” In The Good Polity: Normative Analysis of the State, edited by HamlinAlanPettitPhilip, 17–34. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
15.
CohenJoshua. 1996. “Procedure and Substance in Deliberative Democracy.” In Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, edited by BenhabibSeyla, 95–119. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
16.
CohenJoshua. 1998. “Democracy and Liberty.” In Deliberative Democracy, edited by ElsterJon, 185–231. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
FisherPatrick. 2014. Demographic Gaps in American Political Behavior. Boulder: Westview Press.
19.
FishkinJames. 1995. The Voice of the People. New Haven: Yale University Press.
20.
FrancoeurClaudeLabelleRéalSinclair-DesgagneBernard. 2008. “Gender Diversity in Corporate Governance and Top Management.” Journal of Business Ethics81:83–95.
21.
GarvinDavidRobertoMichael. 2001. “What You Don’t Know about Making Decisions.” Harvard Business Review (September): 108–16.
22.
GolubStephenKayaAyseReayMichael. 2015. “What Were They Thinking? The Federal Reserve in the Run-up to the 2008 Financial Crisis.” Review of International Political Economy22:657–92.
23.
GrimmerJustinStewartBrandon. 2013. “Text as Data: The Promise and Pitfalls of Automatic Content Analysis Methods for Political Texts.” Political Analysis21:267–97.
24.
GutmannAmyThompsonDennis. 1996. Democracy and Disagreement. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
25.
GutmannAmyThompsonDennis. 2004. Why Deliberative Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
26.
HabermasJürgen. 1998. Between Facts and Norms. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
27.
HuangJiekunKisgenDarren. 2013. “Gender and Corporate Finance: Are Male Executives Overconfident Relative to Female Executives?” Journal of Financial Economics108:822–39.
28.
JacobsLawrenceCookFay LomaxCarpiniMichael Delli. 2009. Talking Together: Public Deliberation and Political Participation in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
29.
JanisIrving. 1972. Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. 2nd ed.New York: Houghton Mifflin.
30.
KarpowitzChristopherMendelbergTali. 2014. The Silent Sex: Gender, Deliberation, and Institutions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
31.
KathleneLyn. 1994. “Power and Influence in State Legislative Policymaking: The Interaction of Gender and Position in Committee Hearing Debates.” American Political Science Review88:560–76.
32.
KnightJackJohnsonJames. 1999. “What Sort of Equality Does Deliberative Democracy Require?” In Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics, edited by BohmanJamesRehgWilliam, 279–319. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
33.
MaierPhilipp. 2010. “How Central Banks Take Decisions: An Analysis of Monetary Policy Meetings.” In Challenges in Central Banking, edited by SiklosPierreBohlMartinWoharMark, 320–56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34.
MansbridgeJaneHartz-KarpJanetteAmengualMatthewGastilJohn. 2006. “Norms of Deliberation: An Inductive Study.” Journal of Public Deliberation2 (1): Article 7.
35.
MartiJosé. 2006. “The Epistemic Conception of Deliberative Democracy Defended.” In Deliberative Democracy and Its Discontents, edited by BessonSamanthaMartiJosé, 27–56. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing.
36.
MatteiLaura Winsky. 1998. “Gender and Power in American Legislative Discourse.” Journal of Politics60:440–61.
37.
MeadeEllen. 2005. “The FOMC: Preferences, Voting, and Consensus.” Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review87 (Part 1): 93–101.
38.
MeadeEllenStasavageDavid. 2008. “The Dangers of Increased Transparency in Monetary Policymaking.” Economic Journal (April): 695–717.
39.
MercierHugoLandemoreHélène. 2012. “Reasoning Is for Arguing: Understanding the Successes and Failures of Deliberation.” Political Psychology33:243–58.
40.
NorranderBabaraWilcoxClyde. 2008. “The Gender Gap in Ideology.” Political Behavior30:503–23.
41.
PalviaAjayVähämaaEmiliaVähämaaSami. 2014. “Are Female CEOs and Chairwomen More Conservative and Risk Averse? Evidence from the Banking Industry during the Financial Crisis.” Journal of Business Ethics131:577–94.
42.
ParkinsonJohnMansbridgeJane, eds. 2012. Deliberative Systems. New York: Cambridge University Press.
43.
PoggioneSarah. 2004. “Exploring Gender Differences in State Legislator’s Policy Differences.” Political Research Quarterly57:305–14.
44.
PrzeworskiAdam. 1998. “Deliberation and Ideological Domination.” In Deliberative Democracy, edited by ElsterJon, 140–60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
45.
SandersLynn. 1997. “Against Deliberation.” Political Theory25:347–76.
46.
Schonhardt-BaileyCheryl. 2013. Deliberating American Monetary Policy: A Textual Analysis. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
47.
SibertAnne. 2006. “Central Banking by Committee.” International Finance9:145–68.
48.
SteinerJürgBächtigerAndréSpörndliMarkusSteenbergenMarco. 2004. Deliberative Politics in Action: Analyzing Parliamentary Discourse. New York: Cambridge University Press.
49.
SwersMichele. 1998. “Are Women More Likely to Vote for Women’s Issue Bills than Their Male Colleagues?” Legislative Studies Quarterly23:435–48.
50.
SwersMichele. 2002. The Difference Women Make: The Policy Impact of Women in Congress. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
51.
SwersMichele. 2013. Women in the Club: Gender and Policy Making in the Senate. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
52.
ThomasSue. 1991. “The Impact of Women on State Legislative Policies.” Journal of Politics53:958–76.
53.
ThompsonDennis. 2008. “Deliberative Democratic Theory and Empirical Political Science.” Annual Review of Political Science11:497–520.
54.
ThorntonDaniel. 2006. “When Did the FOMC Begin Targeting the Federal Funds Rate? What the Verbatim Transcripts Tell Us.” Journal of Money, Credit and Banking38:2039–71.
55.
ThorntonDanielWheelockDavid. 2014. “Making Sense of Dissents: A History of FOMC Dissents.” Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review96:213–27.
56.
UrbinatiNadia. 2014. Democracy Disfigured: Opinion, Truth, and the People. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
WoolleyAnita WilliamsCharbrisChristopherPentlandAlexHashmiNadaMaloneThomas. 2010. “Evidence for a Collective Intelligence Factor in the Performance of Human Groups.” Science330:686–88.
59.
WoolleyJohn. 1984. Monetary Politics: The Federal Reserve and the Politics of Monetary Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
60.
YoungIris Marion. 2000. Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
