IN THIS week's print edition, The Economist argues that President Obama should choose the current vice-chair of the Federal Reserve, Janet Yellen, to replace outgoing chairman Ben Bernanke:

Both Ms Yellen and Mr Summers are “doves”, rightly worrying more about economic weakness than any threat from inflation, but it is clearer how Ms Yellen would go about putting her views into practice. As the Fed’s vice-chairman she has pushed the current set of unconventional policies, from bond-buying to “forward guidance”. Under her leadership the central bank would influence market expectations with even more detail around its future plans. Her public demeanour would be much like Mr Bernanke’s: technocratic and based on meticulous command of the data. Her cautious, consensus-building approach would minimise surprises (and financial-market volatility) as the current chairman has. Mr Summers has a less clearly articulated approach to monetary policy and more political baggage. He has said little in public about how central banks can best support economies when short-term rates are at zero. Judging by his record in other areas, he is likely to push for creative solutions but to prefer not to have the Fed’s hands tied by promises about its future direction. The chances are that a Summers Fed would be even bolder, but less predictable, than the Bernanke Fed. Mr Summers’s dazzling intellect would make for bravura public performances, but he would be more likely to unsettle the markets with unscripted comments and to alienate both other Fed governors and lawmakers. The Fed has had “maestro-style” leadership before, notably under Alan Greenspan. That seemed fine, then, but these days the Fed uses more experimental tools, depends more on influencing expectations and has shallower political support. Transparency, predictability and consensus-building therefore matter more than they used to. Mr Bernanke’s low-key leadership has made it easier for him to be radical. Ms Yellen would probably take a similar approach.

On experience with crisis-management, the piece argues, Mr Summers has the upper hand. And, we note, both candidates would probably do a good job running the Fed. On balance, however, Ms Yellen is the safer, and therefore better, choice.

Mr Obama is expected to announce his decision within a few weeks. Mr Summers is widely rumoured to be the president's preferred candidate; some reckon his appointment is at this point a foregone conclusion. On the merits, as we write in the leader, Mr Obama could do far worse. The troubling thing about the choice of Mr Summers, if that is the choice that is made, is the way in which it has come and the criteria Mr Obama seems to be using.

There are limits to what reporting can uncover about a decision that is the president's to make. Mr Obama may in fact be enthralled by Mr Summers' private monetary views. For all I know the president is a die-hard Scott Sumner fan and Mr Summers has whispered to him that market monetarism is now his macroeconomic lodestar. But there are few signs that anything like that is going on.

It's unfortunate, however talented Mr Summers may be. The top job at the Federal Reserve is not an advisory position to the president. It's not about who gets along best with the rest of the West Wing crew. Mr Obama is naming someone to run the most powerful independent technocracy in the world. Mr Summers might well be the right person for the job, but the process of arriving at that conclusion should have gone very, very differently.