Tim Duy, a University of Oregon economist and the writer of the Fed Watch blog, said in an email that Mr. Clarida was “a solid pick — a respected academic economist plus market experience via Pimco plus government experience.”

“I don’t think every position needs to be filled by a trained macroeconomist, but given the nature of the job, I think there needs to be a heavy dominance of trained macroeconomists,” Mr. Duy said. “I think he fits within the current consensus as well so, like the elevation of Williams, represents largely a maintenance of the status quo, at least for now.”

Tony Fratto, a former colleague of Mr. Clarida’s at the Treasury Department, said the nominee’s positions were always driven by data.

“He’s a traditional conservative Republican economist,” Mr. Fratto said. “You’re not going to find a lot of controversial positions from him. You’re not going to find him saying things that are particularly ideological. He’s just a strong policy guy.”

The post to which Mr. Clarida was nominated had been vacant since Stanley Fischer, an appointee of President Barack Obama, stepped down in October.

One thing his nomination will not do is bring diversity to the Fed’s leadership team, which is all-male and all-white — a complaint liberal groups made about the New York Fed’s selection of Mr. Williams. But the reaction to Mr. Clarida’s selection among Fed critics was reserved.

“Like all nominees, Clarida should be vetted thoroughly for his commitment to the full-employment mandate and to regulating banks to avoid another financial crash,” said Shawn Sebastian, the director of the Fed Up campaign, a coalition of labor and other liberal groups that have pushed the Fed to keep interest rates low to aid job creation.