Explaining Argument Strategies:
The Conditions for Evidence-Based Debate in Health Policy Hearings
Kevin M. Esterling
November 6, 2002
Abstract
This paper explains lobbyists' choice among different argument strategies in health
policy debates. In particular, I examine the conditions under which witnesses in committee
hearings support their arguments with research-based empirical evidence, as opposed to opinion,
anecdotes, or personal authority. The data come from a random sample of 150 witnesses that
participated in congressional hearings on Medicare and Medicaid throughout the 1990s. The
data sources are the public records of the hearings, a survey of the sampled witnesses, and a
separate survey of a panel of Medicare policy experts. I show that witnesses' use of research to
support arguments varies systematically across issues and institutions, even after controlling for
individual level effects, and that the determinants of research-based arguments are different from
the determinants of opinion-, anecdotal-, and authority-based arguments. The results suggest
there are identifiable conditions that promote deliberation in national level health policy.
|
