Short communication Intimate partner violence against women and the Nordic paradox Enrique Gracia a, * , Juan Merlo b a Department of Social Psychology, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain b Unit for Social Epidemiology, University of Lund, Malm€ o, Sweden article info Article history: Received 17 December 2015 Received in revised form 25 March 2016 Accepted 29 March 2016 Available online 31 March 2016 Keywords: Intimate partner violence Gender equality Nordic countries Prevalence Violence against women Multilevel analysis Individual heterogeneity abstract Nordic countries are the most gender equal countries in the world, but at the same time they have disproportionally high prevalence rates of intimate partner violence (IPV) against women. High preva- lence of IPV against women, and high levels of gender equality would appear contradictory, but these apparently opposite statements appear to be true in Nordic countries, producing what could be called the ‘Nordic paradox’. Despite this paradox being one of the most puzzling issues in the field, this is a research question rarely asked, and one that remains unanswered. This paper explores a number of theoretical and methodological issues that may help to understand this paradox. Efforts to understand the Nordic paradox may provide an avenue to guide new research on IPV and to respond to this major public health problem in a more effective way. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. The most common form of violence suffered by women is inti- mate partner violence (IPV) (Devries et al., 2013; FRA, 2014; Garcia- Moreno et al., 2006; St€ ockl et al., 2013; WHO, 2013). With a global prevalence of 30%, and with a proportion of murdered women killed by a partner of 38.6% (Devries et al., 2013; St€ ockl et al., 2013), IPV against women remains a major public health problem worldwide (Campbell, 2002; Ellsberg et al., 2008; WHO, 2013). Gender inequality, has been considered a main factor explaining rates of IPV against women and, accordingly, increasing gender equality is a main target to reduce this major public health problem (García-Moreno et al., 2015; Heise, 2011; Jewkes, 2002; Jewkes et al., 2015). High prevalence of IPV against women and high levels of gender equality would appear contradictory, but these apparently opposite statements appear to be true in Nordic coun- tries, producing what could be called ‘the Nordic paradox’. Despite this paradox being one of the most puzzling issues in the field, interestingly, this is a research question rarely asked (Lundgren et al., 2001), and one that remains unanswered. 1. A Nordic paradox? According to The Nordic Council of Ministers (2016), “gender equality refers to the equal rights, responsibilities and opportu- nities in every area of life of women and men and boys and girls. It means that every person - regardless of sex - have equal power and influence in society”. Equality between women and men is a fundamental value in the Nordic countries, which has contributed towards making the Nordic region the most gender equal region in the world today. A number of international indicators support the view that Nordic countries are the most gender equal countries in the world. For example, the three European Union (EU) Nordic countries (Sweden, Finland, and Denmark) have the highest Gender Equality Index, an index developed by the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) based on six core domains (work, money, knowledge, time, power, and health), and allowing comparisons among all EU member States (EIGE, 2012). For example, the EU Nordic countries have indexes between 70.9 and 74.2, with a EU mean of 52.9 (the EU lowest index is 33.7). Also, Iceland, Norway, Finland, and Sweden are, according to the Global Gender Gap Index (Word Economic Forum, 2015), the countries with the smaller gap between men and women measured in four categories: economic participation and opportunity, educational attainment, health and survival, and political empowerment. Finally, according to the Gender Development Index (United Nations Human Development * Corresponding author. Department of Social Psychology, University of Valencia, Avda. Blasco Ib a~ nez, 21, 46010 Valencia, Spain. E-mail address: enrique.gracia@uv.es (E. Gracia). Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Social Science & Medicine journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/socscimed http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.03.040 0277-9536/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Social Science & Medicine 157 (2016) 27e30