Arguing about smoking bans: the role of evidence in the social construction of conflicting policy ideas

Abstract

ABSTRACTThe theory of discursive institutionalism requires support from empirical work. This article analyzes how evidence is used in conflicting ideas about smoking bans and how social constructions are affected by this. The study is set in the context of 16 public debates that took place during Swiss direct-democratic campaigns on smoking bans between 2005 and 2012. A qualitative content analysis of campaign material revealed that the form of benefit allocated to target groups depends on the degree of contestation of evidence included in ideas. Powerful ideas are based on uncontested evidence allowing problems of target groups to be socially constructed as important for the public. By means of ideas, actors may have an effect on policies even when the actors themselves are not evident in the discourse. Observing discourse over ideas enables to track the agents that have the power to promote their ideas at the expense of others.