Options
GOVPET: Governance in Vocational and Professional Education and Training
Type
fundamental research project
Start Date
01 July 2015
End Date
30 June 2020
URI
Status
ongoing
Keywords
vocational and professional education and training
governance
dual education systems
political economy
employers
interest groups
Description
Vocational and Professional Education and Training (VPET) systems are attracting increasing attention once again due to their stellar economic performance. Also Switzerland is more and more the destination of "study visits" of foreign observers interested in learning how VPET systems work in real life. However, dual vocational training systems are difficult to maintain and even more difficult to create from scratch. The reasons for these difficulties lie in the collectively organised structure of VPET systems, in which a multitude of firms, intermediary associations and public authorities cooperate in the provision, financing and administration of skill formation. In particular, VPET systems presuppose that private actors agree to voluntarily cooperate at a decentralised (i.e. regional/sectoral) level. While states may be able to adopt laws premised on such cooperation, states typically lack the means to enforce it. The challenge of maintaining decentralised cooperation becomes even more vexing if one considers that states have a strong interest in getting private actors to consider societal goals in decentralised cooperation. However, while private actors might have a clear interest in skilled workers, their interest in providing training to disadvantaged labour market participants is less straightforward.
Careful governance strategies are needed in the case of collectively organised training systems. However, the strategies used to maintain decentralised cooperation are not very well understood, not least because most research so far has focused on so-called cooperation dilemmas, i.e. situations in which cooperation fails because private interests are at odds with collective interests. However, in case of VPET systems, decentralised cooperation is working surprisingly well in the collectively organised VPET systems of Austria, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland. Hence, the analysis of these VPET systems provides the unique opportunity to understand why and how private actors maintain cooperation and how states can get these private actors to consider societal interests in their decentralised cooperation.
This Leading House Governance in Vocational and Professional Education and Training (GOVPET) focuses on the governance of VPET systems. More concretely, it focuses on two central research questions that are, however, strongly connected. First, we analyse how decentralised cooperation in skill formation is made possible given the many "neuralgic points of contention" (Busemeyer and Trampusch 2012: 16) and the ever-present threat of cooperation breakdown, and ask what stakeholders can do to get private actors to cooperate. Second, we examine how public policies can get private actors to consider societal goals in decentralised cooperation that are not necessarily in the interest of these private actors using the case of the inclusion of disadvantaged labour market participants in the systems of (initial and continuous) vocational and professional training.
We examine these two research questions in eight projects. To answer research question 1, we scrutinise cooperation and conflict in skill formation at the regional and sectoral level. Hence, in contrast to existing research that mainly focuses on the national level, we disaggregate the different layers of cooperation. More concretely, we conduct a fivefold comparative analysis: the analysis of decentralised cooperation in various Swiss regions with a special focus on the role of cantonal authorities (project 1.1); the analysis of decentralised cooperation in various economic sectors in Switzerland with a special focus on the role of professional organisations (project 1.2); the cross-national comparison of decentralised cooperation in regions with similar economic profiles (project 1.3); the cross-national comparison of decentralised cooperation in the same economic sectors (project 1.4); and the cross-national comparison of decentralised cooperation in multi-national firms (project 1.5).
To answer research 2, we examine how governments can get private actors to consider societal goals in decentralised cooperation using the case of the inclusion of disadvantaged labour market participants in the system of skill formation. We do so in three projects: Project 2.1 analyses existing tools to promote an inconclusive VPET system in Switzerland and other countries with a collectively organised training system. Project 2.2 examines employers' recruiting practices and attitudes towards accessibility of the VPET system. Finally, project 2.3 explores targeted programmes (so-called "second chance" training programmes) that aim at providing vocational training to young people who have not managed to obtain a qualification through the standard channels.
Overall, the Leading House promises to generate insights that will help improve our understanding of the strengths, weaknesses and conditions of decentralised cooperation and analyse how the needs of disadvantaged people and the goal of social inclusion are considered in the governance of the VPET system, which is crucial for maintaining a thriving VPET system and for improving social integration. With regard to the further development of the VPET system, the permeability between different systems and the attractiveness of the VPET system are among the most important challenges. The Leading House contributes to solving these challenges.
Careful governance strategies are needed in the case of collectively organised training systems. However, the strategies used to maintain decentralised cooperation are not very well understood, not least because most research so far has focused on so-called cooperation dilemmas, i.e. situations in which cooperation fails because private interests are at odds with collective interests. However, in case of VPET systems, decentralised cooperation is working surprisingly well in the collectively organised VPET systems of Austria, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland. Hence, the analysis of these VPET systems provides the unique opportunity to understand why and how private actors maintain cooperation and how states can get these private actors to consider societal interests in their decentralised cooperation.
This Leading House Governance in Vocational and Professional Education and Training (GOVPET) focuses on the governance of VPET systems. More concretely, it focuses on two central research questions that are, however, strongly connected. First, we analyse how decentralised cooperation in skill formation is made possible given the many "neuralgic points of contention" (Busemeyer and Trampusch 2012: 16) and the ever-present threat of cooperation breakdown, and ask what stakeholders can do to get private actors to cooperate. Second, we examine how public policies can get private actors to consider societal goals in decentralised cooperation that are not necessarily in the interest of these private actors using the case of the inclusion of disadvantaged labour market participants in the systems of (initial and continuous) vocational and professional training.
We examine these two research questions in eight projects. To answer research question 1, we scrutinise cooperation and conflict in skill formation at the regional and sectoral level. Hence, in contrast to existing research that mainly focuses on the national level, we disaggregate the different layers of cooperation. More concretely, we conduct a fivefold comparative analysis: the analysis of decentralised cooperation in various Swiss regions with a special focus on the role of cantonal authorities (project 1.1); the analysis of decentralised cooperation in various economic sectors in Switzerland with a special focus on the role of professional organisations (project 1.2); the cross-national comparison of decentralised cooperation in regions with similar economic profiles (project 1.3); the cross-national comparison of decentralised cooperation in the same economic sectors (project 1.4); and the cross-national comparison of decentralised cooperation in multi-national firms (project 1.5).
To answer research 2, we examine how governments can get private actors to consider societal goals in decentralised cooperation using the case of the inclusion of disadvantaged labour market participants in the system of skill formation. We do so in three projects: Project 2.1 analyses existing tools to promote an inconclusive VPET system in Switzerland and other countries with a collectively organised training system. Project 2.2 examines employers' recruiting practices and attitudes towards accessibility of the VPET system. Finally, project 2.3 explores targeted programmes (so-called "second chance" training programmes) that aim at providing vocational training to young people who have not managed to obtain a qualification through the standard channels.
Overall, the Leading House promises to generate insights that will help improve our understanding of the strengths, weaknesses and conditions of decentralised cooperation and analyse how the needs of disadvantaged people and the goal of social inclusion are considered in the governance of the VPET system, which is crucial for maintaining a thriving VPET system and for improving social integration. With regard to the further development of the VPET system, the permeability between different systems and the attractiveness of the VPET system are among the most important challenges. The Leading House contributes to solving these challenges.
Leader contributor(s)
Member contributor(s)
Bonoli, Giuliano
Trampusch, Christine
Baumeler, Carmen
Pisoni, Delia
Strebel, Alexandra
Wilson, Anna
Partner(s)
Universität Lausanne, Universität zu Köln, Eidgenössisches Hochschulinstitut für Berufsbildung
Funder(s)
Topic(s)
vocational and professional education and training
governance
dual education systems
political economy
employers
interest groups
Method(s)
Data collection
qualitative and quantitative data analysis including survey data
interview data
archival research
Range
HSG Internal
Range (De)
HSG Intern
Principal
Staatssekretariat für Bildung, Forschung und Innovation
Division(s)
Eprints ID
242141
26 results
Now showing
1 - 10 of 26
-
PublicationType: book reviewJournal: Berufsbildung in Wissenschaft und Praxis
-
PublicationType: conference paper
-
PublicationBetween Economic Cooperation and Social Policy: Short-track Dual Training in Denmark, Germany, and Switzerland( 2017-11-11)Wilson, AnnaComparative-historical analysis that systematically combines an inclusiveness with a govern-ance perspective in dual vocational training systems is still rare (but see, e.g., Martin and Knudsen, 2010; Imdorf and Leeman, 2012; Martin and Swank, 2012; Thelen 2014; Busemey-er 2015; Powell et al. 2012). This means that we still know relatively little about how actors shape institutions that may serve inclusiveness in decentralized systems of collective skill for-mation. Therefore, we situate our paper at the nexus between collective governance and inclu-siveness research. In this context, we understand collective governance as the close coopera-tion between public and private actors and inclusiveness in terms of the policy tools, rules, and interventions that aim at providing access to the system to individuals who find it difficult to obtain an apprenticeship position if left on their own. Against this backdrop, we conduct a historical-institutionalist comparison of Denmark, Germany, and Switzerland and the reforms (1990s) and further evolution (2000s to mid-2010s) of short-track dual training programs, which are often described as inclusiveness-enhancing. Unlike the traditional three- to four-year dual training programs, these theory-reduced tracks only take two years to complete in most cases. Further, they are often targeted at more practically oriented students. They ideally increase educational opportunities for stu-dents with lower-level school grades or other disadvantages that lower their chances of gain-ing access to a “regular” apprenticeship program. Short-track dual programs belong to the reg-ular VET systems as they lead to recognized vocational certificates (in contrast to transition measures) and, in most cases, allow graduates to enter the three- to four-year programs. Denmark, Germany, and Switzerland represent key cases of such short-track educational provision within the group of collective skill formation systems. At the same time, the three countries exhibit significant variation in the governance and institutionalization of these pro-grams. Here, we understand institutionalization as an outcome in terms of how short-track dual training is carried and stabilized by regulative, normative, cultural-cognitive institutional dimensions (see Scott, 2008[1995]), which also conditions the inclusiveness character of these programs. This institutionalized outcome, in turn, results from the “political efforts of actors to accomplish their ends” and “the relative power of the actors that support, oppose, or otherwise strive to influence it” (DiMaggio, 1988: 13). The observed variation in the institutionalization of short-track programs in the three decentralized systems concerns, in particular, the compe-tences and activities at the key subnational governance levels (i.e., sectoral, occupational, or regional). Furthermore, the reform processes that have led to the current institutionalization of short-track programs differ, and are linked to either gradual or more radical policy change. This leads us to our central research question: Why do these three relatively similar dual train-ing countries display different types of governance and forms of institutionalization of short-track dual training programs? In this context, we seek to provide new insights on the posi-tioning, influence, and degrees of support of the different key VET actors in relation to such short-track programs. Traditionally, the governance of “regular-length” dual VET programs has been well-researched and compared, notably within the Varieties of Capitalism (VoC) tradition with its focus on employers and economic cooperation. However, we argue that short-track programs are located at the nexus of (a) economic cooperation and (b) social policy – requiring actors to balance economic and social goals. Therefore, on the one hand, we relate to the VoC-related literature on the political economy of collective skill formation to capture economic coopera-tion and the collective nature of skill formation. On the other hand, we refer to the Worlds of Welfare Capitalism (WWC) and the closely related Worlds of Human Capital Formation (WHCF) approach to capture the social policy aspect in the governance of the short-term dual tracks. More generally, we expect that these two theoretical perspective can help us under-stand how stakeholders in short-track programs position themselves between the two institu-tional logics of economic cooperation and social policy. From a broader WWC and WHCF perspective, the three countries can be argued to repre-sent different types of welfare states (Denmark: social-democratic; Germany: conservative; Switzerland: conservative-liberal). We argue that this affects the governance and institutional-ization of “inclusiveness-promoting” short-track programs. From this perspective, the key ra-tionale for looking at Denmark, Germany, and Switzerland is that of typical cases, represent-ing different ideal types, which in turn engender different expectations concerning the role of actors and institutions. Second, from the VoC perspective, the three countries represent key cases of collectively governed skill formation systems predicated on decentralized cooperation between various private and public actors. However, the related literature on varieties of col-lective skill formation has uncovered significant cross-national differences in the institutional configuration of these system (Busemeyer and Trampusch, 2012; Thelen, 2014), which we will take into account. Furthermore, we expect that differences in decentralized governance at the subnational level (regional, sectoral, and occupational) affect how economic cooperation plays out (Emmenegger et al., 2016). Thus, we will draw on both the VoC and the WWC frame-works to structure the comparative-historical analysis of the development of short-track pro-grams. In the 1990s, the VET systems in Denmark, Germany, and Switzerland experienced major problems when a lack of training places and high dropout rates on the apprenticeship market weakened the VET systems. This motivated reforms of VET in these countries. Within these reforms, the topic of short-term programs (existent in some form in all three countries already prior to the 1990s) and their role as a less demanding (for both students and employers) voca-tional training option was discussed intensively. We map the actors involved, their positions, and the social and economic contexts in which these programs were reformed. More specifi-cally, we focus on three central historical phases: (I) historical origins (genesis); (II) crisis and reform in the 1990s; and (II) further evolution (2000s to mid-2010s). Short-track dual training has a long history in all three countries. However, given the general crisis on the respective apprenticeship markets in the 1990s, Phase II presented an important window of opportunity for institutional change in all three countries. To analyze these historical phases, we use process tracing or the analysis of sequences of events to explore the relevant linking mechanisms and intervening processes in specific cases (Mahoney, 2004: 88–89). The goal is to offer a narrative account of crucial sequential events (or processes) that facilitate an understanding of a particular outcome. Each significant histori-cal step contributing to the outcome will be explained with reference to theory (George and Bennett, 2005: 30), in this case the theories varieties of collective skill formation and worlds of welfare capitalism. In terms of data, we analyze official documents and the available sec-ondary literature. Furthermore, we conduct several dozen semi-structured interviews with ex-perts in each country.Type: conference paper
-
PublicationDie Internationalisierung dualer Ausbildungsformen im Tertiärbereich(W. Bertelsmann Verlag, 2016)
;Powell, Justin J.W. ;Fortwengel, Johann ;Bernhard, Nadine ;Faßhauer, UweSevering, Eckart -
PublicationType: conference paper
-
-
PublicationBerufsausbildung in Luxemburg: historische Ursprünge, institutionelle Struktur und aktuelle Herausforderungen(Ministère de l'Éducation Nationale, de l'Enfance et de la Jeunesse, 2015)
;Tröhler, Daniel ;Lenz, ThomasBertemes, Jos -
PublicationType: conference paper
-
PublicationStratifizierung von Berufs- und Hochschulbildung in Europa: Deutschland und Frankreich im Spiegel klassischer Vergleichsstudien(Beltz Juventa, 2015)
;Bernhard, Nadine ;Powell, Justin J. W. ;Dietzen, Agnes ;Powell, Justin J. W. ;Bahl, AnkeLassnigg, LorenzType: book section -
PublicationGermany: Stability and ChangeBook presentation: "Exploring the development of educational provision and contemporary issues, this book covers the countries that made up the European Union from its foundation to the signing of the Treaty of Nice: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and The Netherlands. The chapters, written by regional experts, offer a review of contemporary national and regional educational structures and policies, research innovation and trends, as well as covering selected issues and problems including the effects of educational reform and systemic changes within the school and university systems, minority languages, and intercultural changes for indigenous and new immigrant populations." [http://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/education-in-the-european-union-pre-2003-member-states-9781472528155/ Click here for more information]Type: book section
- «
- 1 (current)
- 2
- 3
- »