What’s changing with unemployment insurance
From today, Sweden’s unemployment insurance reform (a-kassan) marks the most sweeping change in four decades. The system moves away from an eligibility based on how many hours you have worked (arbetsvillkoret) toward an income-based criterion (inkomstvillkor). To qualify, a jobseeker must have earned at least 120,000 SEK in the previous 12 months and have earned at least 11,000 SEK in four of those months. After this, the length of the benefits depends on the person’s income history rather than simply the number of hours worked in the past year.
How benefits are calculated and paid
Under the reform, the replacement rate—the share of prior income you receive while on unemployment—varies with both the duration of membership and the income history. In short, for those who have been a member for 12 months or more, the benefit drops from 80% to 70% after 100 days, and then to 65% after 200 days. The idea is to ensure that the longer you have worked at a higher income, the longer you can count on support, while keeping the system financially viable. At the same time, the cap on the amount you can receive at 80% is being raised—from 33,000 SEK to 34,000 SEK per month—so that higher earners can access a higher ceiling when they qualify. Critics argue that this is not a true wage uplift, because wages often grow faster than the cap is adjusted.
Why the reform is controversial
Proponents say the income-based approach broadens coverage and reduces dependence on time-based rules. The government insists the reform makes the system fairer and easier to navigate. But the national labor confederation LO (Landsorganisationen) has voiced concerns that the change favors higher earners, potentially widening gaps for those with lower incomes who historically took longer to qualify. An LO economist noted that while an income-based system may be smoother in practice, it risks disadvantaging members with modest incomes. The points mirror ongoing debate among Sweden’s unions about equity vs. efficiency in social protection.
Two critical concerns from LO
First, the income-based approach could speed qualification for higher earners, leaving many with lower earnings waiting longer for support. Second, LO argues that the perceived improvement in simplicity does not compensate for the unequal starting point. The union also emphasizes that the reform’s spending structure could affect long-term unemployed most severely due to a faster initial taper.
Is the cap really a gain?
Beyond the reform’s design, critics point to the arithmetic of wage growth. If the cap were aligned with wage development, the 80% replacement threshold could reach about 39,440 SEK, not 34,000 SEK. In other words, for the highest-paid workers, the reform could still leave a sizable portion of income uncovered, even as the official cap rises modestly.
What the data says about real-world impact
Previous analyses by the Swedish Confederation of Professional Employees (TCO) highlight the erosion of the advantage of 80% replacement. Between 2020 and 2025, the cap has risen by around 3%, while median wages climbed roughly 16%. TCO cites that only about a third of current recipients would be able to draw 80% of their prior income under the new regime, and among white-collar workers the figure drops to 18%. A Novus survey conducted for TCO suggests the reform would significantly affect households: two in three workers could see changes to their income if unemployed; half would cut household spending on food; 19% would need to move; 17% would sell a car; 15% would reduce children’s activities. This paints a picture of real-world consequences that extend beyond the monthly numbers.
What this means for workers
In sum, the reform aims to broaden protection but also shifts risk toward those with lower prior incomes or longer unemployment spells. The government argues the income condition makes the regime less punitive for people who previously had to wait for a certain number of hours to accumulate eligibility. Critics counter that, in practice, longer gaps between qualifying income and benefits could cause immediate hardship for long-term jobseekers, who may already be living on tighter budgets. The debate is likely to continue as the first full year under the new rules reveals how families adapt to changed income streams and altered expectations for state support.
What happens next
Policymakers and unions alike will be watching how the new system handles actual unemployment spells, particularly among workers with lower incomes. The government has argued that the reform is the most significant since the 1980s and will bring more people into the safety net, while unions warn of hidden costs borne by vulnerable households. The coming months will reveal whether the reform achieves its goal of broader coverage without eroding the protections that many workers rely on.
