Based on a Discrete Choice Experiment, Finnish women demonstrate a distinct preference for a system characterised by high female participation and institutional flexibility, and are willing to trade a substantial part of their daily allowance for these structural improvements. Furthermore, within the financial dimension, future rewards are heavily discounted in favour of immediate compensation.

Abstract: A central objective of current Finnish defence planning is to ensure the long-term viability of the conscription-based system by sharing the responsibility for national defence more broadly with female volunteers. Prior to developing effective recruitment strategies, an understanding of what women value within the military service system is essential. The present study employs a Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) to provide a multidimensional analysis of military service preferences among Finnish women, comparing those who have already committed to volunteer with the unobserved majority of potential volunteers. The analysis quantifies the monetary value women ascribe to service attributes and investigates whether preference heterogeneity stems from underlying motivation or from the system’s design itself. Within the financial dimension, immediate pay during military service is highly valued, while future rewards are heavily discounted. The findings challenge the strict income maximisation assumptions typical of economic literature on military service, as women exhibit a willingness to trade substantial compensation for systemic improvements, particularly for a more even gender balance and autonomy regarding service commitment. Ultimately, this research demonstrates that these non-financial, institutional attributes are critical determinants of women’s preferences, making them – not just financial incentives – the necessary foundation of effective recruitment.

The full study is available here: Gråsten, E. (2026). Women’s preferences for the military service system: a discrete choice experiment. Defence and Peace Economics, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/10242694.2026.2627999