- This is the website for his book. You can get the chapter with the labor market figure I shared yesterday on this site. I haven't read the chapter yet, but looking through it only the "HA equilibrium" (without shifting labor demand the same way he shifted labor supply in response to the safety net expansions) is in the chapter - presumably the other equilibria he cited are somewhere else in the book, and might even be referenced in the chapter (I'm swamped right now but you've got the link). Taking everything into account to determine how much worse (or better!) the safety net made the recession is quite a task, but if you want to say something about the impact of the safety net on the labor market, I do think you need both supply and demand effects.
- Speaking of making claims about the impact on the recession, this Q&A answer from the same site is interesting:
Q2. Are you saying that the entire recession was caused by redistributive public policy? A2. No: expanded redistribution made the recession at least twice, and probably four times, as deep as it would have been with a constant set of rules for disbursing subsidies to the poor and unemployed. Nor do I say that redistribution was the root cause of the recession – Chapters 9 and 10 of the book explain how the mortgage mess and financial crisis made it politically feasible, if not necessary, to expand the amount of redistribution. [emphasis is added]So it seems to me to make that bolded claim you really do need take labor supply and demand effects of the safety net into account (I've only seen his take on labor supply effects so far - I need to see the book to understand the rest), but also everything else that's going on. If the recession would have been three times as worse (just throwing numbers out there) without the interventions of Bernanke, Bush, and Obama in late 2008/early 2009, your "at least twice, and probably four times" assessments are obviously going to change!
This is a big job, don't get me wrong - I understand that. I just feel like I need to read Mulligan as analysis of the labor supply impact of recent safety net changes - not as a case for a "redistribution recession".
- Finally - data. Here and here. As you guys know I've done a lot of work on racial and gender disparities. Mulligan - because he's interested in macroeconomic questions here - is aggregating the eligibility and benefits indices. One thing I'm curious about is how these increased eligibility and benefits have differentially impacted UI receipt by race. It's always nice to use and cite someone else's constructed data for this sort of thing. It ensures consistency in the literature and guarantees that you use the best out there (assuming - and I think it's safe to assume - that Mulligan's work on this has been among the most meticulous).