@article {178,
	title = {Force, Ideology, and Contract: the History of Ethnic Conscription},
	journal = {Ethnic and Racial Studies},
	volume = {17},
	year = {1994},
	pages = {65-82},
	abstract = {Lay summary: The article examines how governments conscript to the military minority ethnic groups that are potentially hostile to the state. The article finds that three primary methods are used; all employ compulsory conscription but rely on different motives: coercion on fear of punishment; ideology on belief in a political or moral duty; contract on the expectation of civil benefits. The article finds that contract is most likely to ensure both military service and wider societal integration. Publication significance: How can nation states conscript potentially hostile minority ethnic groups to the armed forces and ensure their allegiance to the state? It finds that negotiating contracts with leaders of ethnic groups that guarantee benefits for ethnic minorities in return for army service ultimately better serves state interests than relying on fear of punishment or ideological conviction. These findings have important implications for both theory and policy.},
	author = {Peled, Alon}
}
