A report released last month by the Educational Policy Institute suggests that the United States is among the world’s worst places to have student debt, particularly for students with low incomes.

The report, “Global Debt Patterns: An International Comparison of Student Loan Burdens and Repayment Conditions,” examines the repayment policies adopted by eight countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom.

Low-income graduates in the U.S., defined as those who earn a third less than the average for those with a degree, can spend between 9 and 15 percent of their income on debt repayments every month. By contrast, students earning at least a third above average can expect to hand over no more than 8 percent, according to the report.

A combination of three factors put American students at a disadvantage, according to study author and EPI Vice President Alex Usher. He first points to the high level of debt for American students, averaging $19,300 each.

“Interest rates are on the high side [and] most countries have some form of interest subsidy,” Usher said.

In the United States, unlike most of Europe, a student’s debt is subject to market fluctuations in interest rates once they have completed their studies. According to the report, graduates here currently pay 2.3 percent above this rate, while those still in college pay no interest at all, if they are qualified for a subsidized loan.

Usher suggested that the differing rates before and after graduation work to the advantage of wealthier graduates.

“Most countries don’t make that distinction between in-study and out-of-study,” he said. “The U.S.-Canadian system works well for students who pay off their debt quickly.”

Yet another contributing factor to worse student debt in America is a lower level in which debt has to be repaid, Usher said. The income threshold for repayment lies between $8,000 and $11,000, according to the report. This is likely the crucial flaw, Usher said, forcing students to make repayments on their loans before they can afford to. Other countries examined in the study allow students significantly more financial leeway; in Germany, repayments begin at a salary equivalent to around $14,000, and British students are exempt from repayments until they are earning about $26,400.

The study is by no means critical of the U.S. system, which offers unrivaled flexibility with an array of different government programs, Usher said.

“In any other country, you don’t have the option of messing with the repayment period,” he said. This affords U.S. students a great deal of choice in how they repay, whereas other countries impose fixed repayment periods.

Indeed, the report contests the notion that the level of debt itself is the main cause of student hardship, and argues that “simply measuring student debt is a completely inadequate way of looking at the consequences of student debt.”

The report cites the example of Sweden, where students take on large debts but contribute a relatively modest proportion of their income toward servicing them. It concludes that “even very high amounts of debt can be easily sustained given generous interest rate and repayment policies.”

These policies are often referred to as “income-contingent repayment.” The United States offers both ICR and non-ICR options to students.

This January, EPI released a paper defending ICR and advocated examining individual policies on a case-by-case basis to avoid the “negative connotations that ICR has accumulated over the years.”

The institute has drawn criticism in the past from the Canadian Student Federation, which argues that EPI’s research has a political agenda, supporting moves within Canada to increase the level of student tuition. The report includes unflattering findings on the effect of U.S. student finance policy on low-paid graduates.

The CSF responded with a report charging the institute with seeking to “consolidate and naturalize a social world of ever-increasing debt and a market regime of tuition fees.”

Usher still maintains that his organization’s work is not of political nature, and will not have a major effect on government policy.

“There’s not a lot of recommendations,” he said. “We tend to be very analytical and descriptive. I don’t sense that there’s a huge amount of interest within the U.S.”