Sweden’s unemployment insurance reform: a new era for A-kassan
Starting today, Sweden overhauls its unemployment insurance system, known as A-kassan. The government calls it the most significant reform in four decades, designed to broaden coverage and simplify administration. Critics, especially from the union side, warn that the changes could erode protection and widen existing inequalities.
How the new rules work
From hours to income: a fundamental change
The long-standing arbetsvillkoret, which linked eligibility to the number of hours worked, is replaced by an income-based criterion. To qualify for A-kassan, you must have earned at least 120,000 SEK in the last 12 months and have earned at least 11,000 SEK during at least four of those months. The rule is designed to measure sustained earnings rather than just work days, shifting the focus toward the actual level of income instead of the number of hours worked.
How long benefits last
Under the new system, the duration of benefits depends on the claimant’s income history. The government has not disclosed a single uniform duration; instead, the historical earnings trajectory determines how long compensation can be received. This creates a more personalized timeline, but also introduces variability that unions say can disadvantage lower earners.
How much you get and for how long
Membership time also affects payout. If you have been a member for at least 12 months, the replacement rate drops in two steps: from 80% down to 70% after 100 days, and then to 65% after 200 days. In addition, the system raises the cap for the 80% rate—from 33,000 SEK to 34,000 SEK, allowing higher earners to receive a larger maximum benefit.
Union reaction and the fairness debate
Government officials say the reform aims to extend protection to more people, including those with modest earnings. Yet the LO (Swedish Trade Union Confederation) voices concern that an income-based system benefits higher earners first, leaving lower-income workers with slower access to benefits. An LO economist noted that while the new rules are easier to administer, the practical reality is that many members will still face delayed eligibility. The exchange illustrates the core tension: easier administration versus perceived fairness in coverage.
LO also argues that the staged reduction in benefits will hit long-term unemployed harder, even as the cap is raised. They point out that wage growth has outpaced the cap, so in real terms many will see a diminished safety net. If the cap had been indexed to wages, it would be around 39,440 SEK by 2025, a notable gap compared with the new 34,000 SEK ceiling.
Context: erosion of protection and affordability for households
Public policy researchers have long warned that A-kassan has already eroded over the years. Between 2020 and 2025, the cap rose only 3% while median wages climbed roughly 16%. The federation notes that today only about a third of current beneficiaries receive 80% of their previous income; among civil servants the figure is even lower, at around 18%.
A study commissioned by the TCO and conducted by Novus paints a stark picture of the real-life impact: two out of three workers could see a meaningful decline in their finances if unemployment occurs and their income drops to the maximum 19,000 SEK monthly payout. The survey also reveals practical consequences: roughly half would cut food costs; 19% might need to move; 17% could be forced to sell a car; and 15% would reduce spending on their children’s activities.
What this means for households and the economy
The reform seeks to widen access and streamline processes, potentially reducing administrative friction for the unemployed. However, the real-world implications for middle- and lower-income workers, long-term jobseekers, and families remain a central concern for unions and policy researchers alike. As households adjust to the new income tests and variable benefit durations, observers will watch how the system influences job search behavior, consumption, and poverty risk in the coming months.
Conclusion
Sweden’s A-kassan reform aims to broaden coverage and reflect modern earnings patterns, but critics warn that increased cap and simplified eligibility do not automatically translate into fair protection for all. The debate will likely continue as data emerges on how the new income-based framework affects different income groups and long-term unemployed individuals.
