Reframing Harm and Evidence: Advocacy Coalitions and the Transformation of Finnish Alcohol Policy

Abstract

Aims: The study examines how key stakeholders sought to influence the outcome of Finland's 2018 Alcohol Act reform in the formal consultation rounds. Methods: Drawing on the Advocacy Coalition Framework, we analyzed 224 stakeholder statements to uncover competing belief systems and framing strategies regarding alcohol-related harm. Results: We identified and named two main advocacy coalitions according to their standpoints on the reform's liberalization aspirations: the Public Health Coalition advocated for maintaining restrictive regulation based on population-level evidence and the Total Consumption Model, and the Alcohol Industry Coalition promoted deregulation through individual-level framings of responsibility and selective use of evidence. Both coalitions pursued epistemic dominance by reinforcing their own credibility and challenging that of their opponents. Although the Public Health Coalition relied on established scientific consensus, the Alcohol Industry Coalition appropriated the language of evidence-based policymaking to legitimize liberalization, aligning with broader neoliberal and populist discourses that question expert authority. Despite the scientific coherence of the public health side, the reform advanced in favour of deregulation, reflecting a broader shift toward a new public health and harm paradigm, in which individual responsibility is emphasized. Conclusions: The analysis shows how competing belief systems and discursive strategies shape alcohol policy in contexts where scientific expertise is increasingly politicized. It highlights a need for public health advocates to adjust their strategies to this new reality.