Sweden Finland Austria

partner, which are transferable to the spouse.
Injuries from work
In the Netherlands, there is no separate compensation scheme covering the ’event’ of being
injured from work. The injured person receives compensation for illness and, if the loss of
working capability becomes permanent, public invalidity pension, cf. the section on this.
In the 7 other countries there are specific schemes for industrial injuries. Compensation is,
however, typically received some time after the injury, sickness benefits may cover the
interim period. Only permanent benefits from the schemes are considered here. The level
of compensation varies a great deal. The gross compensation percentages are high in 2 of
the countries (DK and S), relatively high in Finland, Austria and Germany, while they are
somewhat lower in Great Britain. Canada has a high compensation (90 per cent) of lost net
income. The minimum loss of working capability, making the injured person eligible for
permanent compensation, varies from 6.7 per cent in Sweden, 10 per cent in Finland, 14
per cent in Great Britain, 15 per cent in Denmark to 20 per cent in Austria and Germany.
In the Netherlands (where the injured person receives invalidity pension according to the
public scheme) the threshold is 15 per cent loss of working capability. There is no stated
minimum in Canada.

---

37
The compensation from the insurance can be supplemented by, or co-ordinated with, the
public invalidity pension scheme. In Denmark and Great Britain the two systems are
combined, in Sweden and Germany a co-ordination takes place.
The scheme is financed by the employer in 6 of the countries while it is financed by taxes
in Great Britain.
The level of compensation
Two sets of calculations have been performed, one where the working capability is com-
pletely lost, and one where 
D
of the working capability of the single APW is lost. In the
latter case it is assumed that the injured person still receives 
E
of his or her former work-
ing income. Only current permanent benefits are considered. Supplementary benefits for
immobility or special care are not included.
The results of the calculations are shown in table 2.7. The impact on disposable income is
again measured in relation to the current annual disposable income of the APW.
Table 2.7.
Effects on disposable income from being permanently injured from work in 8 countries,
1997.
DK
S
FIN
A
D
NL
GB
CAN
Complete loss of working capability
Compensation
percentage
108
100
85
80
67
70
53
90
1)
Change in disposable
income, %
+23.7
0.0
-7.7
+8.7
+16.6
-27.4
-29.2
- 10.0
Loss of 
D
 of working capability
Compensation
percentage
74
100
85
67
67
63
28
90
1)
Change in disposable 
income, %
- 5.2
0.0
-2.2
+2.6
+12.4
- 10.3
-17.2
+0.7
1) The compensation per cent is after tax.
Sweden has the most transparent system, the compensation percentage is 100 and there is
no change in disposable income. The compensation is in relation to the loss of income, not
the degree of disability. In the Danish case there is a considerable increase in disposable
income (in the case of complete loss of working capability) for the injured person. This is
because the compensation for injuries from work is combined with the public invalidity

---

38
pension scheme. In the case of 
D
loss of working capability, the Danish APW is not
eligible for invalidity pension and there is a modest drop in disposable income. The sepa-
rate compensation for injuries from work is related to income and proportional to the
degree of disability.
In Germany, the compensation is calculated on the basis of gross income and is propor-
tional to the degree of disability. The compensation is not taxed, and there is no ’Progres-
sionsvorbehalt’, cf. appendix 1 (Germany, Unemployment). These conditions lead to
increases in disposable income in both cases, most when the working capability is com-
pletely lost. The relative impact in the case with 
D
loss of working capacity is, however,
large in proportion to the loss of working capacity because the tax free compensation here
replaces income with a relatively high marginal taxation.
Austria has a scheme of similar design as the German, and with similar effects. The
relative effects in the two cases are close to being proportional to the degree of disability
but that is because the 100% loss of working capability has an extra benefit (20% of the
basic pension).
The Finnish scheme leads to relatively modest declines in disposable income in both cases.
The compensation is related to income and proportional to the degree of disability.
The Canadian scheme compensates a high proportion of lost net income and is propor-
tional to the degree of disability. The negative effect in case of full disability is relatively
modest, in case of 
D
loss of working capability there is a small positive effect due to the
progression in the tax scheme.
In Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Austria, Germany and Canada the compensation is ’income
related’, the cap is at a high income level, while the British system is ’flat rate’ and gradu-
ated after the degree of disability. Combined with Incapacity Benefit the negative impact
on disposable income is similar to that in the Netherlands (phase 1), in the 100 per cent
loss of working capability case. Incapacity Benefit is assumed not to be received in the 33
1/3 per cent loss of working capability case in GB. For the Netherlands it is, as already
mentioned, the impact of the public invalidity pension scheme which is presented in table
2.7. The scheme is ’income related’ and the compensation is related to the degree of
disability. The initial (phase 1) benefit is time limited for most new recipients (after 1994),
most of whom will experience reduced benefits when phase 2 starts, cf. the section on
invalidity pension.