Changing patterns in the use of problem- and solution-oriented evidence in debates on sustainability issues: the case of pesticide policy in Switzerland

Having knowledge about problems and possible solutions has proven to be a key factor for sustainable transformation. While problem-oriented evidence can help to put a sustainability issue on the political agenda, solution-oriented evidence can help to promote possible ways out of the problem. It is reasonable to assume that the type of evidence used changes in the course of a debate and along the policy cycle. At the same time, it has been shown that the type of evidence used by those opposing change also changes when the focus of the debate shifts from problem definition to solution finding. In this paper, we show how the use of evidence by both advocates of change and defenders of the status quo in the parliamentary arena is interdependent and changes over time when a debate unfolds. We examine the changing patterns of evidence use for the issue of pesticide use in the Swiss parliamentary arena. In Switzerland, the use of pesticides is a sustainability issue that has become increasingly contested over the last decade, culminating in the vote on two popular initiatives on the topic in 2021. Therefore, the case is ideal for examining the use of evidence over the course of an evolving debate. Specifically, we examine the use of problem- and solution-oriented evidence in narratives about both the risks of pesticide use (i.e., calling for change) and the risks of pesticide use reduction (i.e., defending the status quo). The data is obtained through a manual content analysis of policy documents from the parliamentary arena (written proposals / requests, speeches) dating from 2013 to 2022. The insights gained from our empirical analysis are relevant for at least two reasons. First, they shed light on the uptake of evidence by political actors pursuing different agendas, as well as possible interactions between these camps in the way they use evidence to achieve their political goals. Second, they highlight the importance of different types of knowledge about sustainability issues for the policymaking process, as well as their availability to political actors. Both of these aspects not only help us to better understand how and why evidence is used by actors in the parliamentary arena, but also inform us about possible barriers to sustainable transformation.