A new Research Square preprint by Maelle Delouis-Jost argues that compulsory military service may reinforce exclusionary views of national belonging rather than build broad civic solidarity. Using European Social Survey data and a regression discontinuity design across eleven European countries that abolished mandatory conscription between 1961 and 2006, the study finds that men who narrowly missed conscription after abolition expressed less negative views of immigration’s effects on the economy, culture, and quality of life. The paper is a preprint and has not yet been peer reviewed.

The main result is a statistically significant drop of about 0.06 standard deviations in anti-immigration sentiment among cohorts exempted from conscription. The change appears to come mainly from softer perceptions of immigration’s consequences, rather than from consistent changes in support for far-right parties or immigration policy preferences. Conscription may shape how people think about immigrants, but those shifts do not automatically translate into different voting or policy views.

“Conscription constructs a salient in-group–the nation’s defenders–and, by contrast, out-groups who do not serve. Identification with this in-group fosters cohesion and moral superiority,but also sharpens symbolic boundaries of belonging. When national identity is framed in defensive or securitized terms, these boundaries become exclusionary. Immigrants, who are often absent from conscript cohorts and portrayed as culturally or politically misaligned, are especially likely to be positioned as out-groups. This boundary-drawing function is particularly salient in contemporary Europe, where nationalist and far-right actors increasingly frame political conflict around questions of belonging, cultural integrity, and internal security (Jones 2024).”

The findings show that exempted male cohorts express significantly more favorable views of immigration’s cultural, economic, and societal effects. The results offer partial support for the exclusionary nationalism hypothesis, which posits that conscription fosters in-group loyalty and out-group exclusion. The observed decline in negative immigration perceptions following abolition suggests that compulsory conscription may indeed reinforce exclusionary views.

Abstract

Amid renewed debates about national service in Europe, military conscription is increasingly seen not just as a tool for defense, but as a way to foster social cohesion and national identity. This paper asks whether exposure to conscription shapes how people think about immigration. Using data from the European Social Survey and a regression discontinuity design, I examine the long-term effects of conscription on attitudes toward immigration in eleven European countries that abolished mandatory conscription between 1961 and 2006. Individuals who narrowly missed conscription due to abolition express less negative views about immigration’s impact on the economy, culture, and quality of life, consistent with conscription reinforcing exclusionary perceptions. However, these changes in perception do not consistently lead to lower support for far-right political parties or to more liberal policy preferences, suggesting a gap between personal beliefs and political behavior. These findings contribute to debates on nationalism, civic institutions, and the political consequences of military service, and carry implications for countries currently reconsidering conscription

Read the entire study through the following link.