Rapha Diack, Daniel Farrell, Hanna Seyoum, and Yamasiko Small Zungu

Overview

The draft, also known as conscription, is a process in which young men are randomly selected to serve in the military. This required military service can take several forms, such as compulsory enlistment, reserve duty, or national service. The primary objective of conscription is to ensure that a country has an adequate number of trained soldiers to defend itself in times of war or national emergency.

 While the draft aims to prepare nations for war, it has profound social, political, economic, and human consequences that must be weighed against military benefits. This chapter will start by considering the history of the draft and whether its egalitarian intentions are successful. Then, it will move on to consider the economic costs of conscription, the human cost, and finally, the effects of conscription on educational attainment and human capital. 

A Brief History of Conscription in the U.S.: Is the draft system equitable? 

The use of military conscription has evolved throughout the United States’ history as a republic. Conscription and its recent uses have undermined the democratic principles upon which the United States stands, as it disregards moral, personal, and religious opposition to take up arms and prioritizes the state above the individual’s rights. However, most Western democracies have enforced conscription at one time or another. Conscription has often been framed as an equitable and necessary burden placed on all citizens; however, throughout its use in the U.S.,  the burden is often disproportionately placed on lower-income men, and especially felt for black and Hispanic individuals as these groups tend to be overrepresented in the military. 

The Civil War

 Conscription in the U.S. was first used in the Civil War to build the Union Army of the North and the Confederate Army of the South (Blair, 2015). Before the Civil War, both armies comprised volunteers recruited and paid by the state. Volunteer rates increased once the probability of a draft increased; however, volunteer rates dwindled over time among white men.

Volunteerism during the Civil War was restricted to the white population, especially in the South, where there were significant concerns about arming the enslaved black population. The South was the residence of many enslaved black people, who, in some cases, outnumbered white residents. There were concerns, following slave uprisings in the South, that arming enslaved people would cause an insurrection during the war or increase the risk of insurrection once the war concluded (Wesley, 1919). However, this changed slowly as volunteer rates decreased. Thus, black men were armed (under strict conditions in the South) and incorporated into the Union and Confederate armies, mainly in segregated units. 

The Militia Act of 1862 called for a draft only if states failed to meet their quota of three-year volunteers, allowing exemptions in response to dwindling volunteer rates (Perri et al., 2013). This was poorly received, and the public rioted in response, but the government proceeded to adopt the draft a year later, with the first wave taking place in October 1863 (Perri et al., 2013). Non-disabled men between the ages of 18 and 45 were drafted and expected to serve if their names were called. They were paid army wages, often significantly below their regular wages, and were expected to serve for three years.

In the northern states, men subjected to conscription had three legal options to evade military service. Men could claim a physical disability, pay a commutation fee of $300, or find someone to take their place (Levine et al., 1981). The Union government monitored how much soldiers could pay for commutation or substitution by applying a price ceiling (Alpert & Kauffman, 1999). Commutation and substitution allowed wealthy individuals to effortlessly and legally avoid conscription, resulting in a militia comprised predominantly of low-income men who tended to be younger and were likely agricultural laborers (Alpert & Kauffman, 1999). 

Three more draft calls followed the first during the Civil War. Increasing restrictions forced more men to serve in the military. Although commutation was repealed much later, most drafted men could avoid conscription through legal means or by not reporting to the draft board of examinations (Levine et al., 1981). Thus, conscription failed to recruit significantly more men than the volunteer system before because 60% of eligible men chose to avoid service (Alpert & Kauffman, 1999). This placed a heavier burden and, therefore, a death toll on lower-income men. 

However, this paved the way for the U.S. government to use conscription in future conflicts. During the 20th century, the U.S. used conscription to source military workforce for World Wars I and II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War.

World War I and II

The use of conscription in the First World War was forced upon the U.S. as they watched the war unfold across the seas. Volunteerism rates were low despite President Woodrow’s attempts to strengthen the regular American army, from 80,000 men (most of whom were in dependencies abroad) to 127,000 National Guard officers. Initially, Wilson did not think it necessary to prepare for war; however, when the fighting broke out in Europe, Wilson proposed that Congress increase its regular army to 142,000 men and its reserves to 400,000 men (Tyron et al., 1968). 

Although the draft was meant to conscript men into the military fairly and randomly, 80% of those drafted were manual laborers, and for a short time, skilled workers were allowed to opt out of the draft. This resulted in a drafted army disproportionately made up of men with the lowest opportunity cost of serving in the eyes of the state (Perri et al., 2013). Consequently, individuals with lower incomes were once again disproportionately more affected by the draft. 

During World War II, conscription was far more random. The first men to be drafted were chosen through a lottery system, with the older men being drafted before younger men (Perri et al., 2013). Under the American Draft Law passed in 1940, deferments were allowed but with a high level of stringency and discretion, giving preferential treatment to married men, fathers, and many farmworkers (Perri et al., 2013). Therefore, single men were more likely to be drafted (Perri et al., 2013). At this time, students could not defer based on their educational status. As a result, high levels of students, including engineering and medical students, were drafted during the Second World War. 

As a result, the G.I. bill was passed and went into effect after the end of World War II. The G.I. bill had four main provisions to help support veterans returning from war. One of which provided veterans with sizable grants and funding from the government to attend American colleges. G.I benefits were determined based on length of service and were given to individuals rather than institutions (Onkst, 1998).

 The G.I. bill bumped college enrollment rates up 50% from before wartime (Bound & Turner, 2002). This bill had an enormous impact on families with immigrants and low-income White households because the bill made college more accessible. Higher levels of education expanded their opportunities, as many veterans who benefited from the G.I. bill were the first college graduates in their families.  Hence, the bill was framed as a ‘democratization’ of American universities because it increased college admissions for lower-income Americans in an environment previously dominated by the wealthy and substantially increased veterans’ earning potential (Bound & Turner, 2002). The G.I. bill also had other provisions in place that supported veterans who were unemployed and provided services to place veterans in occupations that best suited their skill sets (Onkst, 1998). 

However, the G.I. bill did not benefit all Americans equally. black veterans who returned from the war were not granted the same benefits as their White counterparts. Many black veterans faced several hurdles that prevented them from benefiting from the G.I. bill, especially in the South, where segregation limited the access black Americans had to resources provided by the government. Black high schools in the South were severely underfunded, often receiving one-fourth of the budget of white schools (Herbold, 1994).  Therefore, many black students were not prepared for rigorous college curriculums.

Moreover, segregation practiced within institutions, especially across Southern states,  prevented a significant amount of black veterans from entering universities after their service. Organizations such as the Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars that were supposed to assist returning veterans refused to support or represent black veterans or black veteran organizations (Herbold, 1994). Black veterans also faced threats of violence or retaliation as a result of claiming their benefits. 

The G.I. bill was successful in propelling lower-income white and some black returning veterans into the middle class. However, the resources were not fairly distributed, which only allowed income disparity among White Americans and African Americans to grow. 

The drafts performed during the Korean and Vietnam Wars of 1950 and 1955, respectively, were modeled after the drafts of the First and Second World Wars. WWI’s more selective draft method was pursued to provide troops during the Korean War. However, the draft was used as a tool to persuade soldiers to volunteer instead of being forcefully drafted during the Vietnam War. 

Korean and Vietnam Wars

 Before the Korean War, both black and white conscripts were more likely to train and fight together because all branches of the military were desegregated in 1948 by executive order under the Truman administration. However, discrimination within the military persisted as many all-Black units served throughout the Korean War (Black, 2016). 

The Korean War lasted from 1950 to 1953, and the drafting system allowed for more deferments because it was smaller and lacked public support in the U.S. Simultaneously, public support for conscription to build the army was fading due to the disproportionate burden it placed on low-income men. The government proposed a lottery draft to remedy this, but this proposal was incredibly unpopular in the polls (Kriner & Shen, 2016).

 Meanwhile, men were encouraged to pursue degrees due to government funding from the G.I. bill. Scientific degrees were prevalent as the U.S. was experiencing a shortage of individuals pursuing scientific careers, especially as investment in wartime equipment and weaponry development became essential to the government.

Despite this,  high college enrollment rates gave rise to issues because over 2 million men were enrolled in college, thus qualifying for their service to be deferred and shrinking the pool of potential draftees (Perri et al., 2013). College deferments undermined the drafting system because student deferments were established as a temporary measure between the Korean and Vietnam wars to increase the number of skilled laborers, especially within STEM fields, since many STEM students could not evade the draft during the Second World War. When students were expected to join the army once more during the Vietnam War, this provoked outrage on college campuses, partly because the draft had lost public approval but also because the Vietnam War effort was incredibly unpopular. 

Exceptions were made for educational attainment, as there was more significant pressure to increase the volume of research conducted, and the Nixon administration feared a shortage of scientists. However, college deferments were criticized because white college students were more likely to be in college at this time due to the effects of the G.I. bill. Minority students, however, tended to have more difficulty accessing the resources intended to be available to them. This led to an overrepresentation of black men as they did not qualify for educational deferments, which resulted in higher casualty rates among this group (McGlynn & Lavariega, 2010). Black soldier deaths made up 20% of the total death toll, even though black soldiers constituted only 11% of recruits (De Angelis & Segal, 2012).

Farmers and industrial workers were also granted more deferments than any other sector to avoid supply shortages and support local needs and wartime efforts. The Vietnam War, however, prompted a return to WWII’s relatively more indiscriminate drafting practices with the lottery system. Although educational and industry-related deferments were granted, 88% of foot soldiers involved in the Vietnam War had been forcefully drafted (Perri et al., 2013).  

Voluntary Service Today

Today, the U.S. military is wholly made up of voluntary members. The military recruits today, like any other organization, attend career fairs at college and high school campuses and present to students. Most of these recruits today hail from Southern states, which Maley and Hawkins (2018) hypothesize is due to a phenomenon known as ‘Southern Military Tradition,’ which describes a culture of military lineage, however, they found no evidence to support this claim. Limited economic opportunities for high school graduates in the South could also explain this. Nevertheless, individuals of lower incomes or minority groups are still overrepresented in the military compared to the civilian labor force, especially in the South (McGlynn & Lavariega Monfort, 2010). This signifies that systemic patterns are being repeated and sustained by current recruiting practices. 

Although McGlynn and Lavariega Monfort (2010) find mixed evidence regarding ‘The Poverty Draft’, the U.S. government has historically been guilty of drafting individuals with lower incomes by allowing for exclusionary deferment policies which disproportionately favor individuals who are either wealthy or white. Although the G.I. bill was instrumental in lifting many veterans out of poverty and transforming their futures after WWII, these gains were not equally distributed. Black veterans struggled to access those same benefits and, as a result, were cast back into the throes of violence. The draft has a history of being inequitable and undemocratic. However, recruitment methods today have yet to prove themselves as the most just and equitable method of sourcing military personnel. 

Economic Costs 

The economic costs of a military draft, while often overlooked, can be substantial and multifaceted, impacting both the government and the economy as a whole. The implementation of a draft introduces various financial burdens that extend beyond the immediate expenses of training and deploying troops. This section will be viewing the importance and variations of cost in the draft.

Financial Costs

First, we look at World War II, the total financial cost to the U.S. government exceeded $300 billion for the draft. In the Vietnam War, the estimated cost of the draft was around $168 billion. According to the defense budget for 1965, the cost of active duty military personnel was $12,662 million; retirement benefits accounted for another $1,384 million. A second estimate of the payroll cost is obtained by applying the annual military incomes to the age structure of the force. (W.Y, 1967)

Direct Costs

The direct costs of the draft include recruitment, training, and equipping conscripts. While conscripts may be cheaper to recruit initially compared to professional soldiers, training them to a sufficient standard requires significant investment. World War II, despite its relatively short duration of less than four years, stands out as the costliest conflict in the annals of United States history. When adjusted for inflation to reflect current economic values, the war’s expenditure surpassed a staggering $4 trillion. Notably, in 1945, its final year, defense spending alone constituted approximately 40% of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product. The draft disrupts the labor market by removing individuals from civilian jobs, leading to productivity losses and decreased economic output. Employers may face difficulties in replacing drafted workers, particularly if they possess specialized skills or knowledge. This disruption can hinder business operations and economic growth, as companies grapple with labor shortages and increased training expenses for new hires. It is important to mention that World War II was a progressive time for women because many vacant jobs due to the draft allowed women to join the labor force. It is also important to note that the draft can exacerbate income inequality by disproportionately affecting low-income individuals who lack the resources to evade conscription through deferments or exemptions. These individuals may suffer greater economic hardship due to the loss of income and job stability, perpetuating cycles of poverty within affected communities. 

Opportunity Costs

There is a separate effect of the economy which is the opportunity cost that many civilians encounter. The economic opportunity cost of serving in the military is higher for those who could earn more in civilian life, perhaps because of their education or privileged social background. These people should arguably be more likely to oppose the draft. (Oi, 1967) ​​The draft reduces the available workforce, lowering productivity and economic output in affected sectors, while it not only affects a civilian’s immediate financial well-being but also has long-term implications for their earning potential and economic stability.  This highlights the true economic burden on civilians through opportunity cost.

Additionally, the draft can distort resource allocation within the economy. Governments prioritize military spending over investments in education, healthcare, infrastructure, and other sectors that contribute more directly to long-term economic development. This misallocation of resources can hinder innovation and productivity growth, ultimately impeding overall economic prosperity. Moreover, the uncertainty surrounding the draft can have adverse effects on consumer confidence and investment decisions. Fears of military conscription may lead individuals to postpone major purchases, such as homes or vehicles, or to save more as a precautionary measure, reducing aggregate demand and dampening economic activity.

Psychological Impact

Furthermore, the psychological impact of compulsory military service has long-lasting economic consequences. Conscripts experience mental health issues such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or depression, affecting their ability to reintegrate into civilian life and participate fully in the workforce. (Fordham, 2016). According to Fordham, Conscripts lack the specialized skills and experience of volunteers, necessitating additional training programs, which strains military budgets. Not only is this true but the cost-benefit mechanism that drives support for war also applies to public opinion about the draft. Just as concern about casualties should affect support the for war, so concern about the cost of the draft should affect support for conscription. (Fordham, 2016) This is important as it allows us to measure the weight of the draft on civilian mental health and productivity of the community. Addressing these mental health challenges that require substantial healthcare resources and support services, imposing additional costs on both the government and society. 

Recruitment & Retainment 

According to recent studies on military recruitment and retention, there exists a notable efficiency implication stemming from the discrepancy between voluntary enlistment and conscription. Research findings consistently indicate that individuals who voluntarily enlist demonstrate a higher propensity for reenlistment compared to their counterparts who are conscripted or enlist due to draft-related motivations. This pattern underscores the intrinsic value of voluntary commitment within military ranks, suggesting that individuals actively joining the armed forces are more likely to exhibit sustained dedication and loyalty to their service. (Fisher, 1969) Such insights shed light on the importance of understanding recruitment motivations and their subsequent impact on long-term retention strategies within military institutions. 

Implications

In conclusion, the economic implications of the military draft are complex and require thorough examination. While the draft can relieve certain financial pressures linked to recruitment and training, it brings about various other economic challenges. These encompass decreased productivity among conscripted individuals, potential disturbances in the labor market, and the diversion of resources towards maintaining a large standing military force. Furthermore, the draft might dissuade individuals from pursuing higher education or specialized training, which could impact their long-term earning potential and hinder innovation. Additionally, the societal costs of conscription, such as encroachments on individual freedoms and the risk of social unrest, need to be carefully balanced against its economic effects. Thus, any decisions regarding the adoption or elimination of the military draft should be informed by a comprehensive understanding of its economic consequences, while also considering national security imperatives and societal values.

Human Costs 

  While aiming to serve national defense needs, military conscription imposes substantial human costs on draftees, their families, and society. These costs become evident in various forms, including the physical and psychological effects on conscripts, the loss of autonomy and disruption to civilian lives, and the ethical concerns surrounding forced military service

Crime Outcomes/Political Impact

          Current Research has revealed the unintended consequences of military conscription during the Vietnam War era on crime outcomes in the United States. Wang and Flores-Lagunes (2022) investigated the effects of the Vietnam draft lotteries, which randomly assigned men to military service, on violent crime incarceration and recidivism rates. The study found that the draft lotteries had direct effects on increasing these rates, particularly among draft avoiders born in 1950. Using a nonparametric bounds method, the authors estimated that for white volunteers born in 1951 and 1952, military service increased the incarceration rates for violent crimes by at least 0.20 and 0.31 percentage points. These lower bounds provide strong evidence of the crime-inducing effects of military service, even in the absence of precise point estimates. The findings suggest that the Vietnam draft lotteries not only affected those who were conscripted but also had spillover effects on those who sought to avoid the draft.

Although Vlachos’s (2022) study focused on the French regions of Alsace and Moselle during World War II, it may be concluded that the experience of forced conscription can induce political radicalization and reduce trust in political institutions and mainstream parties. Even though the historical and political contexts of the studies are significantly different, the findings of Vlachos (2022) could offer some behavioral determinants based on which to analyze the long-term political impact associated with the Vietnam War draft in the United States. Specifically, it can be hypothesized that a similar study might find that traumatic conscription and military services during the Vietnam War era had a lasting impact on political attitudes, trust, and preferences for radical political movements. Both studies by Wang and Flores-Lagunes and Vlachos highlight the importance of taking into account the human costs of military conscription where they go far beyond the ones that immediately serve. The outcomes in terms of crime and political attitudes and views create numerous externalities that may eventually harm other individuals and society at large. Policymakers need to consider these costs and be eager to eliminate these potential negative externalities while expanding or implementing the existing or new military draft systems. More detailed research on the conscription–crime–political attitudes mechanisms in the United States and policy interventions or strategies optimal for reducing these adverse outcomes are also needed to help encourage better decisions about who to recruit and how to support veterans.

Misallocation of Talent

     Conscription often occurs during a critical period in young adults’ lives when they are pursuing education or starting their careers. Being forced to serve in the military can disrupt these plans and have long-lasting effects on individuals’ human capital accumulation and prospects. Poutvaara and Wagener (2007) discuss how conscription can misallocate talent, as individuals are forced to serve in the military regardless of their comparative advantage in citizen occupations. This can result in losing specialization and efficiency in the labor market.

Form of Taxation 

 Economists have long recognized that conscription acts as a form of taxation on draftees, as they are typically paid below-market wages for their labor (Hansen & Weisbrod, 1967). This implicit tax can be substantial, with estimates ranging from 39% to 54% of a draftee’s potential civilian earnings in the United States during the 1960s (Perri, 2008). By forcing individuals to serve at artificially low wages, conscription redistributes income from draftees to the rest of society, who bear a lower explicit tax burden. The disruption to education and career plans, combined with the implicit tax on draftee labor, can significantly affect individuals’ earnings and productivity. Simulation exercises by Poutvaara and Wagener (2007) suggest that a year of conscription can reduce an individual’s lifetime earnings by up to 1% for every year of mandatory service. At a macroeconomic level, this explains lower GDP and economic growth, underlining conscription’s social and economic costs.

Ethical Concerns and Individual Rights

        Conscription raises essential questions about the limits of state power and the rights of individuals. Forced military service can violate personal liberty and freedom of choice, as individuals must serve against their will. This raises ethical concerns about explaining such pressure, particularly in peacetime or conflicts that do not directly threaten national security. Hansen and Weisbrod (1967) argue that conscription disregards individuals’ freedom to choose their occupation and allocate their time as they see fit. It is important to note that Draft often falls disproportionately on disadvantaged groups, such as low-income and less-educated individuals. Perri (2008) finds that during the American Civil War, conscription acts as a regressive tax, with implicit tax rates ranging from 36% to 53% for individuals with lower levels of education. This unequal burden raises concerns about fairness and social justice, as conscription places a heavier burden on those who are already socioeconomically disadvantaged.

Disproportionate Impact on Disadvantaged Groups

  Conscription’s disproportionate impact on different groups of society can potentially worsen existing social and economic imbalances. As Wang and Flores-Lagunes (2022) show, the crime-inducing effects of military service are concentrated among disadvantaged groups, such as those with pre-existing criminal records or from low-income backgrounds. This implies that conscription may contribute to the intergenerational transmission of inequality, as the negative consequences of military service are endured disproportionately by already marginalized groups.

 The human costs of conscription are vest. From greater rates of incarceration and the moral risks of conscription, conscription raises significant human costs for people and society. The costs are unevenly endured by the poor, worsening social and economic inequalities. Policymakers need to weigh these human costs against any unique military benefits of conscription before doing so. Eventually, the decision to implement a draft should be made with a complete understanding of its far-reaching consequences for individuals, communities, and society.  

Impact on Education

The military draft is an interesting phenomenon to study because it intersects with various aspects such as history, politics, education, the economy, and much more. Military conscription has different impacts in different countries based on government policies, the cost of living, and the education system. This analysis will highlight how the conscript influences education. Identifying its impact on educational attainment will be the starting point. Then, we will move on to wages and finally investigate its relationship with students’ Grade Point Average (GPA).

Effect on educational attainment 

Countries such as the US and the Netherlands will be used as examples to evaluate the impact that conscription has on education. The reason behind this is to have a broader perspective on how the draft may affect higher education enrollment. Comparing the two countries can provide useful insights into how different approaches to the draft can play a role in educational outcomes. 

In the US, during the Vietnam War era (1955-1975), military conscription was required for all males reaching the age of 18. They were selected based on a draft lottery system and had to fulfill the military service unless they qualified for exemptions or deferments. An example of an exemption would be being enrolled in college or having a certain medical condition. During this same war, the government created a law stating that men who were enrolled in college could receive deferments from military service. This law initiated a movement called draft avoidance. Males tend to engage in draft avoidance for different reasons, reasons such as personal beliefs, objection to war, or concerns about the risks associated with military service. Thus, at that time, men tried to be registered to school and stay longer to avoid being drafted. Men were eligible for induction until the age of 35. At 35, individuals are transitioning out of the youthful phase of their lives, and consequently, they are less likely to be subject to military conscription. The college entry rate increased from 54% in 1963 to 62% in 1968 which was the peak year of the draft (Card, D., & Lemieux, T., 2001). The GI Bill also contributed to the boost of the college entry rate (Bound, J., & Turner, S., 2002). However, from 1968 to 1973 as the draft was being phased out, the college enrollment rate and the number of inductions decreased significantly. The draft was being phased out due to an increase in the opposition to the war, it was harder to get recruits.

In comparison, in the  Netherlands, only 40% of each birth cohort actually served in the military (Hubers, F., & Webbink, D., 2015). For almost two centuries, the Netherlands has had a military conscription. In that country, tertiary education consists of two levels: higher professional education and university education. Higher Professional Education (HPE) is the level of education that falls between secondary and traditional academic higher learning. In the Dutch system, males who dropped out from their university curriculum had to fulfill their military service before being allowed to re-enroll.  Frank Hubbers and Dinand Webbink (2015), found a negative effect of conscription on investment in human capital. Nevertheless, its estimated effect is insignificant on the probability of obtaining a higher professional education degree (HPE). Military conscription significantly impacts the probability of obtaining a university degree for the Dutch, diminishing their likelihood of academic attainment. In the Netherlands, the system of the draft reduces the completion of a university degree from 12.3 to 10.8% (Hubers, F., & Webbink, D., 2015). If this system did not exist, by comparing the percentage of male university graduates in three consecutive cohorts before 1959 with the percentage in three consecutive cohorts after 1959, the result will be that the latter group has a 1.5 percentage point higher proportion of male graduates (Hubers, F., & Webbink, D., 2015). 

The main difference between those two countries is that in the US college could be used as a way to not go to military service while for Dutch, males were forced to go first before being allowed to re-enroll. 

Effect on Wages

Analyzing the many aspects of conscription illuminates the grave consequences it can impose on people’s earnings. The negative impact of conscription on recruits’ pay is an important factor to take into account. In the 1980s and early 1990s, Imbens and van der Klaauw (1995) carried out research in the Netherlands and found that, in comparison to non-draftees, Dutch draftees suffered a significant loss of up to 5% in lifetime wages. This loss resulted from the disruption that conscription brought about, which frequently caused delays in career or educational advancement. Delays of this kind hindered the long-term acquisition of information and skills required to get higher-paying employment prospects.

Furthermore, research undertaken during the Vietnam War era indicates that the negative effects of conscription on incomes were magnified during times of conflict. For example, white veterans’ incomes were 15% lower than those of their non-veteran counterparts in the early 1980s (Angrist, 1990). In the same way, Angrist and Krueger (1994) showed that World War II soldiers made less money than non-veterans. These results imply that people suffer long-term financial consequences as a result of conscription during times of war.

One possible explanation for these negative effects lies in the impact of conscription on human capital development. Conscripts frequently encounter setbacks in their academic and professional paths, which can impede their ability to pick up important knowledge and skills. Therefore, conscription may reduce the returns on individual investments in human capital, which would be detrimental to recruits’ prospects for future earnings.

Effect on GPA

The Grade Point Average (GPA) measures overall the student’s academic performance during a specific semester or a specific year. In the US, the mean GPA for non-veterans was 3.11 while the mean GPA for veterans was 3.03 (Nathan & Young, 2012). The GPA for veterans is thus lower than non-veterans, perhaps because it takes time for them to adjust to the college lifestyle. Veterans may face challenges transitioning from the military back to the academic environment, such as adjusting to civilian norms, adapting to civilian life, and meeting academic expectations. Veterans may also have some traumatic experiences that come from war, which can naturally affect their mental health and stop them from performing well. As they are joining late, they might be behind on the courses, which can contribute to a lower GPA.  Another variable that could affect GPA is family income. Veterans students tend to have a relatively lower level of family income than their civilian peers. Only 21.1% of student veterans fell into the high annual income range compared to 35.2% for non-veterans (Nathan & Young, 2012). A lower family income can contribute to that mental health, which can prevent you from having a higher GPA. 

​Conclusion

The burden of conscription is never equally distributed among the country’s citizens. Throughout the U.S. government’s use of the draft, the most disadvantaged and vulnerable individuals in American society often bear the brunt of the conflict. This trend persists today as the military recruits from areas where economic opportunities are scarce, often resulting in the overrepresentation of minorities. This can lead to increased rates of violent crime and incarceration especially in minority communities.

However, the effects of the draft on educational attainment are mixed as it depends on the policies of specific countries. Conscription can have devastating effects on society by interrupting the education of young adults and negatively affecting the students’ GPA. This can hinder their professional goals and negatively impact human capital overall which adversely affects earning potential. However, in the U.S., conscription has led to higher college enrollment rates than ever seen before, especially for students hailing from lower-income families, though not as much for minorities. 

References

Alpert, C., & Kauffman, K. (1999). The Economics of the Union Draft: Institutional Failure and Manipulation of the Labor Market During the Civil War. Essays in Economic & Business History, 17, 89-108.

Altman, S. H., Fechter, A. E., Horowitz, M. C., Simpson, E. M., Stam, A. C., Choi, W., James, P., Warner, J. T., Asch, B. J., Shubik, M., Verkerke, J. H., Harris, R., Hause, J. C., Cook, A. A., Tollison, R. D., Fisher, A. C., & Fisher, A. C. (1967). The Absence of a Draft. The American Economic Review, 57(2), 19-31.

Benjamin O. Fordham, Historical Perspective on Public Support for the Draft: War Costs and Military Service, Journal of Global Security Studies, Volume 1, Issue 4, November 2016, Pages 303–322

Bingley, P., Lundborg, P., & Lyk-Jensen, S. V. (2020). The Opportunity Costs of Mandatory Military Service: Evidence from a Draft Lottery. Journal of Labor Economics, 38(1), 39–66.

Blair, W. A. (2015). Finding the Ending of America’s Civil War. The American Historical Review, 120(5), 1753–1766.

Black, H. K. (2016). Three generations, three wars: African American veterans. The Gerontologist, 56(1), 33-41.

Bound, J., & Turner, S. (2002). Going to war and going to college: Did World War II and the GI Bill increase educational attainment for returning veterans? Journal of labor economics, 20(4), 784-815

Card, D., & Lemieux, T. (2001). Going to college to avoid the draft: The unintended legacy of the Vietnam War. American Economic Review, 91(2), 97-102.

De Angelis, K., & Segal, D. R. (2012). Minorities in the military. The Oxford Handbook of military psychology, 325-343.

Durdella, N. R., & Kim, Y. K. (2012). Understanding patterns of college outcomes among student veterans.

Fisher, A. C. (1969). The Cost of the Draft and the Cost of Ending the Draft. The American Economic Review, 59(3), 239–254.

Geiling, J., Rosen, J. M., & Edwards, R. D. (2012, November 1). Medical costs of war in 2035: Long-Term Care Challenges for veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan. Military medicine, 177(11), 1235-1244.

Hansen, W. L., & Weisbrod, B. A. (1967). Economics of the Military Draft. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 81(3), 395–421. 

Hansen, W. L., & Weisbrod, B. A. (1967). Economics of the Military Draft. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 81(3), 395–421.

Herbold, H. (1994). Never a level playing field: Blacks and the GI Bill. The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, (6), pp. 104–108.

Hubers, F., & Webbink, D. (2015). The long-term effects of military conscription on educational attainment and wages. IZA Journal of Labor Economics, 4(1), 1–16.

Imbens, G, van der Klaauw W (1995). Evaluating the cost of conscription in the Netherlands. J Bus Econ Stat 13(2): 207–215.

Keller, K., Poutvaara, P., & Wagener, A. (2010). Does a Military Draft Discourage Enrollment in Higher Education? FinanzArchiv, 66(2), 97–120.

Kriner, D. L., & Shen, F. X. (2016). Conscription, inequality, and partisan support for war. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 60(8), 1419-1445.

Levi, M., Obinger, H., Gates, S., Cohn, L. P., Toronto, N. W., STRONG-BOAG, V., Geva, D., Zürcher, J., & Proctor, T. M. (1996). The Institution of Conscription. Social Science History, 20(1), 133-167.

Levine, P. (1981). Draft evasion in the North during the Civil War, 1863-1865. The Journal of American History, 67(4), 816-834.

Lokshin, M. & Yemtsov, R. (2008). Who bears the cost of Russia’s military draft? Economics of Transition, 16: pp. 359–387.

Maley, A. J., & Hawkins, D. N. (2018). The southern military tradition: Sociodemographic factors, cultural legacy, and US army enlistments. Armed Forces & Society, 44(2), 195–218.

McGlynn, A., & Lavariega Monforti, J. (2010). The poverty draft? Exploring the role of socioeconomic status in US military recruitment of Hispanic students and exploring the Role of Socioeconomic Status in US Military Recruitment of Hispanic Students. Exploring the Role of Socioeconomic Status in US Military Recruitment of Hispanic Students.

Oi, W. Y. (1967). The Economic Cost of the Draft. The American Economic Review, 57(2), 39–62.

Onkst, D. H. (1998). ” First a negro… incidentally a veteran”: black World War Two veterans and the GI Bill of Rights in the Deep South, 1944-1948. Journal of Social History, 517–543.

Perri, T. J. (2008). The Economics of US Civil War Conscription. American Law and Economics Review, 10(2), 424–453. 

Perri, T. J., LAHOUD, N., Mottle, L., TAYLOR, W. A., Tarabar, D., & Hall, J. C. (2013). The Evolution of Military Conscription in the United States. The Independent Review, 17(3), 429–439. 

Poutvaara, & Wagener. (2007). Conscription: economic costs and political allure. The Economics of Peace and Security Journal, 6–13.

Ross, T. W., et al.. (1994). Raising an Army: A Positive Theory of Military Recruitment. The Journal of Law & Economics, 37(1), 109-131.

Schmitz, L. L., & Conley, D. (2016). The Effect of Vietnam-Era Conscription and Genetic Potential for Educational Attainment on Schooling Outcomes. Economics of Education Review 61 (2017): 85-97.

Thompson, et. al. (1979). An Economic Basis for the “National Defense Argument” for Aiding Certain Industries. Journal of Political Economy, 87(1), 1–36.

The National WWII Museum. (2022). GI Bill and Executive Order 9981. The National WWII Museum. 

Tryon, W. S., Frederick, D. C., Leber, T. T., & Huston, J. A. (1968). The Draft in World War I. Current History, 54(322), 339–344. 

Vlachos, S. (2022, May). On war and political radicalization: Evidence from forced conscription into the Wehrmacht. European Economic Review, 144, 104086.

Wang, X., & Flores-Lagunes, A. (2022). Conscription and Military Service: Do They Result in Future Violent and Nonviolent Incarcerations and Recidivism? Journal of Human Resources, 57(5), 1715–1757. 

 Weisbrod, Burton A. and Hansen, W. Lee, Economics of the Military Draft (August 1, 1967). The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 81, No. 3, pp. 395–421, August 1967

Wesley, C. H. (1919). The Employment of Negroes as Soldiers in the Confederate Army. The Journal of Negro History, 4(3), 239–253.