Drafting Support for War: Conscription and Mass Support for Warfare

TLDR

Conscription’s effect on war support is contested, with some scholars arguing it lowers support by highlighting costs and others claiming it raises support by signaling conflict importance, yet evidence remains inconclusive and limited to a single conflict. This study examines how a country’s recruitment policy—draft versus conscript—shapes the American public’s assessment of whether a war is worth fighting. An original survey experiment shows that conscription consistently reduces mass support for war across multiple settings, driven by self‑interest concerns, underscoring its relevance to debates on domestic political conditions and war initiation.

Abstract

How does a military's recruitment policy—whether a country has a draft or conscript army—influence mass support for war? We investigate how military recruitment affects the way the American public evaluates whether a war is worth fighting. While some argue that conscription decreases support for war by making its costs more salient, others argue that it increases support by signaling the importance of the conflict. Existing evidence is inconclusive, with data limited to one particular conflict. Using an original survey experiment, we find strong support for the argument that conscription decreases mass support for war, a finding that replicates in several different settings. We also show that these findings are driven by concerns about self-interest, consistent with our theory. We conclude by discussing the relevance of these findings for debates about how domestic political conditions influence when states go to war.