David Henderson gives a great talk on the role of economists in ending the draft - a subject he's written on before.
It's interesting to see this, because actually just this weekend I told my wife the story about Milton Friedman and General Westmoreland. We drove by Westmoreland St. (I have no idea if it was named for the general, but I wouldn't be surprised), and it reminded me of Friedman. She works at National Defense University, so I figured she'd appreciate it. She confirmed my understanding too that the military today (and presumably earlier for many of them) is in full agreement with Friedman on this point. With an AVF they get people who want to be there and are dedicated to the mission.
The one point she did raise - another one I agree with - is that part of what you get from the AVF is that the military draws disproportionately from lower income populations. This is both a good thing and a bad thing. It's a good thing because it's an opportunity for upward mobility, education, experience, etc. It does have a downside, of course, when the wealthy go to Congress or pick the people that do and lower income people fight the wars Congress tells them to fight. That's just something to keep in mind - it's not an argument against the AVF. Everything has costs and benefits.
The other thing I wanted to mention that I've always found interesting (and have always wanted to write up) - is that almost all the big players in the fight against the draft (from economics at least) also made important contributions to the literature on the science and engineering workforce. I think the common thread here is that in both cases they were combatting what Kenneth Boulding called the "manpower concept" (and in some of Boulding's writings, U.S. policy on the science and engineering workforce and on the draft were explicitly tied together). The manpower concept is the view that you have certain input requirements (in this case manpower) that you need to satisfy and either you supply enough manpower to achieve your goal or you have inadequate manpower. The manpower concept has no appreciation at all of the role of the price system, trade offs between goals, or marginalism.
Posts
The fact that rich people go to Congress while poor people go fight wars is really only a problem if there is some sort of class solidarity. Historically, the people in position of political power have been able to shield their families from the draft. So I would say this isn't a problem with AVF. This is a problem with politically-powerful people being able to wage war with other people.
ReplyDeleteWell people with families in Congress was a little extreme. One need only point out that outside income opportunities are negatively correlated with likelihood to enlist in an AVF. They're obviously negatively correlated under a draft too, but to a lesser extent.
Delete" That's just something to keep in mind - it's not an argument against the AVF. Everything has costs and benefits."
ReplyDeleteI'd prefer to put it, "It is an argument against it... as is every cost." Then you weigh the arguments for it -- the benefits -- and see what you get.
True.
DeleteAlthough I was thinking of the argument being "AVF concentrates service among lower income populations" - and that in and of itself has both costs and benefits.
I'd argue that the end of the draft has been a disaster.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that people don't think "will I or someone I know have to serve in this war?" lowers their threshold of tolerance for military adventures and unrealistic commitments. Much of our budget deficit -- and the consequent efforts to gut social programs -- results from these endless adventures.
I also think the leveling effect of the draft was necessary to make elites accept social democracy, which was why the post-War era, specifically, was the Keynesian era. A return of the draft would change the social dynamic considerably, and I doubt elites would be willing to tolerate 8 percent unemployment if many of those affected were veterans.
I don't see how the fear of being drafted is actually relevant. Those who make those decisions have enough political power to shield themselves and those they care about from the draft. So the political elite don't care. As not-a-political-elite, there is nothing I can do.
DeleteAnd then, there is the moral element. There is something extremely perverse about the United States fighting wars in the name of freedom while using armies of slaves.
So you think that public opinion is totally unrelated to political elites' decisions about foreign policy? That's true on marginal issues (the majority of Americans do not support the embargo against Cuba, for instance). But wars are a big deal, and when they are unpopular it tends to kill politicians' careers. Eisenhower was elected because of the unpopularity of the Korean war. Lincoln would probably have lost in 1864 if not for the victory at Antietam. The first Indochina War brought down a succession of French governments. And so on.
DeleteRe: "armies of slaves." There is something extremely perverse about describing as "slaves" people who live in a democratic country, are monetarily compensated for their service, and receive special consideration for the rest of their lives after this service ends. Ask anybody who served in World War II whether they considered themselves enslaved.
I do not think that public opinion is totally unrelated to political elites' decisions about foreign policy. I simply think that it is driven by people's self-interest. Specifically, people's self-interest about feeling good about themselves and fitting in to their social circles. Given that an individual's vote has no bearing on whether or not they will be drafted, I don't think it makes any sense to say: "re-institute the draft that way people will vote to avoid being drafted".
DeleteI don't have WWII vets on hand. I did know of people who tried to dodge the draft and considered themselves greatly wronged by it. Being of drafting age and having had to register with the Selective Service System, I do consider that if anyone forces me against my will to abandon my life, my career, my wife in order to go perform a labor, especially one as dangerous as fighting in a war, (a war which I would most likely oppose) I would consider that to be slavery and consider myself perfectly justified in violently opposing it.
In Principles classes, I try and show students that the results of an AVF for a given required number of soldiers are identical to the results of sending out draft notices while allowing the purchase of substitutes. I suggest that the same reasoning would support allowing the purchase of substitutes for jury duty. This is a good way to get them to see the way the market changes the meaning of what is marketed - sometimes profoundly; and that efficiency doesn't trump all.
ReplyDeleteAn all vounteer jury is a fascinating idea.
DeleteAn AVF is justified in part in that you are actually getting a better military. I wonder if by a reasonable definition of "better" you could get this result for a jury.
The ideal jury, after all, is a jury of our peers. It is almost by definition random. An ideal military is not by definition random.
So the idea intrigues me... I'm not sure what I think.
Yikes, Daniel: I meant the jury suggestion as a reductio. Oh well: two ships, I guess.
ReplyDelete