Is there a Nordic model for alcohol and gambling policy? 

Alcohol policy in the Nordic region, apart from Denmark, has historically been known for its restrictiveness. High taxes, limited number of points of sale, high age limits, and bans on advertising are familiar features. In Norway, Sweden, Iceland and Finland state monopolies control retail alcohol sales. These measures are not arbitrary, rather, they are based on public health evidence. 

The World Health Organization (WHO) identifies restrictions on availability, higher pricing, and marketing controls as “best buys” for reducing alcohol-related harm. Our study finds that most Nordic countries still, in most cases, implement these policies consistently and where they do, alcohol consumption and related harm tend to be lower. 

Yet the system is under pressure. Free trade rules from the European Union and the European Economic Area have pushed countries toward liberalization. Political debates increasingly emphasize consumer choice and market freedoms. This tension raises questions about how sustainable the restrictive tradition will be in the future. 

Gambling: a different story 

While alcohol is mostly seen as a public health issue throughout the Nordics, gambling has been treated more as a market activity. State involvement is present in several Nordic countries, in the form of state monopolies or state-owned operators. Yet, in comparison to alcohol policy, the overall approach has been more liberal. Gambling advertising is widespread, and private companies play a larger role in many markets. 

The result is that gambling policy has generally been less restrictive than alcohol policy. The framing is also different: gambling has often been justified in terms of economic interests, revenue for the state, and consumer choice rather than primarily harm reduction. 

Interestingly, however, this may now be changing. Rising concern about problem gambling and gambling harm has pushed some countries toward tighter restrictions, including limits on advertising and stricter responsible gambling measures. In this sense, alcohol and gambling policy may be moving in opposite directions: alcohol toward liberalization, gambling toward greater control. 

A Nordic model? 

So, do we find a single “Nordic model” of regulation? Well, yes and no. There are some clear similarities: state involvement, relatively restrictive traditions, and a willingness to frame these issues (at least partly) in terms of collective welfare. But there are also significant differences across countries, and between alcohol and gambling policy. 

The study concludes that the Nordic model is less of a unified system and more of an idea of tradition. Common historical roots and welfare state logics remain visible, but political pressures, market liberalization, and international legal frameworks have introduced divergence. The idea of a Nordic model can help countries navigate the international pressure to open markets and help maintain political support for population-level protections. However, this requires collaboration around a common goal: prioritizing public health over competing policy aims of revenue generation.  

Why this matters 

The comparison of alcohol and gambling regulation leads to a broader question: how societies frame risky activities. When framed as a public health issue, as is the case with alcohol, policies emphasize restriction, prevention, and harm reduction. When framed as a consumer market, as is the case with gambling, policies tend to emphasize competition, revenue, and individual choice. 

The Nordic countries illustrate both approaches within the same region. Whether the Nordic countries continue to chart a common course, or drift further apart, will depend on future political choices, political will and politics of prioritization. 

The article is written by   

Mikaela Lindeman, Promotional and Preventive work unit, Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare 

Virve Marionneau, The Centre for Research on Addiction, Control and Governance, University of Helsinki

& 

Jenny Cisneros Örnberg, Department of Public Health Sciences, Centre for Social Research on Alcohol and Drugs, Stockholm University