Swedish Government´s Proposal for Residence-Based Eligibility Rules for Social Security Benefits Risks Deepening Inequalities

For decades, Sweden’s welfare system has provided comprehensive social protections to all residents, regardless of citizenship or duration of residence. These protections have played a key role in reducing health inequalities and promoting social cohesion. However, the new reform proposed by the Swedish government would mark a departure from this universal model by conditioning access to essential benefits on stricter residency duration and income thresholds.

Under the proposal, migrant residents would be required to live in Sweden for at least five years within a fifteen-year period to qualify for a range of social benefits, including child allowance, housing support, and basic-level sickness and parental leave compensation. An alternative “fast-track” pathway based on income would require individuals to meet relatively high earnings thresholds.

Affects the most vulnerable

However, according to a new article published in the scientific journal The Lancet Regional Health – Europe by researchers from the Department of Public Health Sciences at Stockholm University, these criteria may exclude those in the most vulnerable socioeconomic positions.

“The Swedish welfare state is built on the principle of social rights, supported by income redistribution and policies of social inclusion. However, social benefits, which have traditionally been a core pillar of the welfare system, are nowadays increasingly framed as an economic burden and a sign of system failure,” says Sol Juárez, Professor in Public Health Sciences at Stockholm University and one of the authors of the article. “For many individuals, social benefits represent a pathway to integration and a measure of the state’s commitment to human rights and dignity.”

While the proposed reform is framed as a measure to encourage employment and reduce long-term benefit dependency, evidence suggests it would disproportionately impact migrant populations, according to Juárez and her colleagues, Amy Heshmati and Helena Honkaniemi. In their article they argue that by restricting access to social protection, the policy risks reinforcing cycles of disadvantage. They fear that the reduced support would lead to poorer health outcomes and diminished participation in the labour market.

Could lead to increased inequality, weakened social cohesion, and negative public health outcomes

These developments coincide with broader shifts in Sweden’s healthcare system, including increased reliance on privately delivered care and private health insurance, the researchers argue.

“Together, these changes signal a move away from the principle of care based on need and equal access, which are cornerstones of Swedish social policy,” Honkaniemi says.

Together with Heshmati and Honkaniemi-Hoppe, Juárez cautions that restrictive policies targeting migrant populations can have far-reaching consequences. Beyond complicating integration, such measures are associated with increased inequality, weakened social cohesion, and negative public health outcomes for society as a whole.

“As Sweden considers this pivotal reform, we urge policymakers to weigh the substantial body of evidence highlighting the societal costs of limiting access to welfare protections. The outcome of this decision will have lasting implications for equity, public health, and the future of the Swedish welfare model,” Heshmati says.

For further information, please contact Sol Juárez: sol.juarez@su.se.

Håkan Soold