Judy Yates

Abstract

Judith (Judy) Nancy Yates first lectured at the University of Sydney in 1967–1968 before rejoining the University in 1972 following her PhD. Judy remained a member of staff until her retirement in 2008, after which she was appointed an Honorary Associate. During her time in the School of Economics (and its predecessors), Judy left an indelible mark on students and colleagues at the University of Sydney and on the policy community in Australia through her work as an applied economist. While that work focussed largely on housing-related research throughout much of her career, Judy's PhD from the University of Amsterdam was in optimal control theory rather than economics, and her appointment at the University of Sydney was to a lectureship in mathematical economics. It was during the late 1970s and early 1980s that Judy immersed herself in the housing-related research following her work for the Campbell Report into the Australian Financial System. That report along with others initiated many of the microeconomic reforms, especially liberalisation of financial markets, that were a feature of the 1980s and 1990s. Those policy reforms were an important contributor to the economic developments that Judy immersed herself in throughout her academic career. Specifically, Judy's role in that Inquiry and her deep concerns around distributional issues initiated an ongoing interest in, analysis of and contribution to academic and public debates focussing on housing policy.

While Judy's academic and public policy contributions around housing are well documented, it is important to note that those contributions from the very beginning were to what at the time was the nascent field of housing economics. Judy's contributions beginning in the early to mid-1980s highlight the instrumental role Judy played not just in Australia but also internationally in raising the intellectual rigour of this field of study. In this respect as in many others, Judy was a pathbreaker. Judy had topped her Honours class at the ANU and upon finding that as a female she would be paid less than her male counterparts at the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics, took a tutorship at the Australian National University. In the 1980s, Judy was the first woman to be appointed to the boards of the Housing Loans Insurance Commission and the Commonwealth Bank. Judy held numerous appointments on Commonwealth and State Government statutory bodies (including the National Housing Supply Council between 2008 and 2013) and Ministerial Advisory Committees throughout her distinguished career.

During her career at the University of Sydney, Judy was a dedicated educator, selfless in mentoring of junior colleagues and an example for all on how to actively engage in the policy-making process as an academic. Judy was director of the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI) Sydney Research Centre from 2001 to 2004 and contributed to numerous AHURI reports. My own introduction into housing economics as a junior academic was through an invitation from Judy to collaborate on an AHURI grant. Subsequent to that collaboration, I worked on a series of projects with Judy, and after her ‘retirement’, Judy was a constant source of sage advice and insights. Those insights reflected not just her deep knowledge about the Australian housing market, but also her enduring interest in the housing challenges that Australia faced. Challenges that the papers in this volume make clear have not diminished but have in many instances become more acute. Colleagues at the University of Sydney who knew Judy remarked on her ‘energy, generosity and capacity’ to get students fascinated in economics. They also noted her ability to present a ‘coherent, concise written argument’. The ability to identify a problem and provide a succinct, considered and robust assessment of it was a feature of Judy's contribution to academic, policy and public debates around housing.

The papers in this special edition focus on housing economics and touch on many of the themes that Judy's own work considered. Those papers range from technical analyses that seek to understand housing within the broader economy, to those that focus on debates that are critical to understanding how housing markets work, and why they deliver (or do not deliver) the outcomes that policymakers and the community seek. In a similar fashion, Judy's own work traversed technical analysis of the distribution of wealth and the demand for housing, while being constantly focussed on understanding the implications of policy settings for the housing outcomes of individuals.

Khemka, Tang and Warren present a ‘cascade model’ that integrates projections for Australian housing with macroeconomic outcomes and asset markets over long horizons. This contribution serves to highlight that housing is one component, albeit a critical one, of the economy. The model captures housing in the broader economy and allows simulating joint ‘paths’ for inflation, wages, cash rates, mortgage rates, rents, rental yields, house prices and fund returns over long horizons. The paper serves to highlight that housing cannot be considered in isolation and reminds us of the central role played by housing across a range of economic indicators and outcomes. In a similar fashion, Judy's contributions over her career made clear that the housing outcomes experienced by individual households were closely linked to financial markets and macroeconomic policy settings.

Warlters focuses on the taxation housing, a theme that was an enduring component of Judy's own work and reflected her own concerns around the distributional impact and distortionary effect of tax and subsidy settings that favoured some groups over others. The paper considers the effects on home ownership of abolishing deductions for negative gearing losses and halving the capital gains tax discount. Such a paper is a timely contribution to public debate as homeownership, especially among younger cohorts, continues to fall with one of the ‘culprits’ often identified as investors who are able to take advantage of concessions embedded in State and Commonwealth tax policy. While the analysis suggests a relatively modest effect on house prices, it highlights the potentially relatively large impact on homeownership as the holding period of investors declines. The paper represents a timely contribution to public debate around the appropriate tax treatment of housing amid reluctance by governments to address what is widely considered poorly designed housing related tax settings.

The next two papers utilise the Household Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey to provide insight into specific aspects of homeownership and housing. Churchill and Smythe focus on the relationship between ethnic diversity and homeownership, a pertinent topic given the emphasis placed on homeownership and the reality of modern Australia, with more than one-quarter of Australians being migrants. They find that neighbourhood ethnic diversity is associated with a lower probability of homeownership, lower levels of trust, neighbourhood satisfaction and belongingness. The desire for homeownership is deeply embedded in the Australian psyche and in policy settings that are supported in a bipartisan manner. Accordingly, this paper provides an important opportunity to consider whether the objective of homeownership is broadly accessible across the community. The paper by Botha et al. highlights that housing has implications beyond simply providing shelter. Specifically, by considering the relationship between housing affordability stress and a multi-item measure of financial well-being across tenure types, they are able to test whether good financial well-being is protective of the negative mental health effects of housing affordability stress. Perhaps one of the most important findings relates to renters, namely that better financial well-being is associated with a mitigation of the adverse mental health effects associated with housing affordability challenges. Given current concerns around housing affordability, especially for renters, this paper provides novel insights and a timely reminder about the analysis of Judy and co-authors in the early 2000s on housing affordability and the detrimental impacts not just on individuals, but society more broadly.

The papers by Sims and Herman, and Pawson and Martin, are important reminders that ultimately it is housing policy that is critical for the housing outcomes that we experience. In the case of Australia, Pawson and Martin focus attention on the unique nature of housing policy in Australia, with its emphasis on demand-side measures and lack of overarching strategy relative to other countries. Some of those policy settings (or lack thereof) were a recurring theme in Judy's work throughout her career and the focus of critiques made of Australian housing policy, often though not always because of the poor targeting they entailed. The contribution of Sims and Herman highlights that how housing ‘markets’ work remains a hotly contested debate—as it should. Planning and regulatory reform is often identified as the source of housing unaffordability and lack of supply. Sims and Herman consider alternative theoretical frameworks, the monopoly model and quota model, to explain high housing costs and seek to reconcile those competing hypotheses. Critically this paper highlights that housing policy remains a contested space with unresolved questions on how restrictions relate to completions and house prices. While not a ‘call to arms’ as such, this thought-provoking piece reminds us that much empirical analysis remains to be done to truly understand housing markets and why they deliver the outcomes we experience.

The paper by Barker and Korczak-Krzeczowski emphasises that housing contributes to welfare both directly and indirectly by facilitating other opportunities such as engagement in the labour force. That enabling role of housing does not depend on homeownership. Indeed there are good reasons that have been extensively analysed across countries (including Australia) to believe that homeownership may impede engagement in the labour force. This contribution ties in closely with perhaps one of the most important legacies of Judy's own work over many decades. Namely, that secure and affordable housing is important not just in itself, but for the opportunities it provides.

The final paper is a reflection by two of Judy's long-term collaborators and friends, Geoff Meen and Christine Whitehead. Those papers highlight that housing is a perplexing challenge from an academic standpoint—encompassing both macroeconomic and microeconomic components. As Meen notes, Judy made important contributions across a range of housing policy topics including housing finance, housing subsidies, tenure outcomes and affordable housing. Those contributions always had a bigger aim—to understand housing; identify where it did not deliver; and, propose solutions that were grounded in robust analysis and sound reasoning. Whitehead provides some personal insights into Judy as she became immersed in academic and policy debates around housing in parallel with her own career. Judy's role as an academic economist and policy advisor, not just in Australia but also internationally, are highlighted and speak to the esteem that Judy was held in Australia and elsewhere. For me, the description of Judy as a colleague, mentor and friend over decades are poignant reminders of Judy's contribution to those around her over many years.

Judy Yates had a remarkable career that stretched across five decades at the University of Sydney. Following her ‘retirement’ from the University, Judy remained an active contributor to the School, mentor to junior colleagues and source of sound advice. Her contribution has been recognised in the Judy Yates Prize in Economics awarded annually by the School of Economics since 2021 for the best undergraduate essay exploring the topic of ‘unmet societal needs’. She was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia Award in 2021 for her services to research and education. Always modest—Judy was an inspiration for all those who were fortunate enough to call her a friend, colleague or educator. Her work continues in the many who were inspired by her as a student or were fortunate to know her as a colleague.