Suchergebnisse

In recent years the global market for higher education has expanded rapidly while internationalisation strategies have been developed at university, national, as well as European levels, all with the aim to increase the competitiveness of higher education institutions. This paper asks how different institutional settings explain distinct national patterns found in the internationalisation of universities, observed to be based largely on either market coordination or strategic interaction of the involved actors. Existing concepts from the Varieties of Capitalism literature, such as institutional complementarity and comparative institutional advantage, are introduced to the comparative study of higher education systems and applied to develop a theoretical framework for an institutional analysis of university strategies in the global market for higher education. In a case study, the analytical framework is then deployed to contrast the internationalisation of universities in Germany and the United Kingdom. The internationalisation processes reflect the mode of coordination in the respective higher education systems and national models of capitalism. Further insights are that the conceptual toolbox of the Varieties of Capitalism approach can be fruitfully applied to higher education, and that it is possible to enhance the framework by adding the state as a significant factor in differentiation. ; Der globale Markt für Hochschulbildung ist in den letzten Jahren rasant gewachsen. Gleichzeitig wird die Internationalisierung von Universitäten auf verschiedensten Governance-Ebenen (z.B. Europäische Union, Bund und Länder, Hochschulverwaltung) stark forciert. In diesem Arbeitspapier wird der Frage nachgegangen, inwiefern die unterschiedlichen Muster in der Internationalisierung deutscher und britischer Universitäten durch nationale institutionelle Rahmenbedingungen begründet sind. Mit dem "komparativen institutionellen Vorteil" und der "institutionellen Komplementarität" werden konzeptionelle Bausteine aus der Varieties-of-Capitalism-Debatte aufgegriffen, um die Internationalisierungsprozesse deutscher und britischer Universitäten zu analysieren. Wie aus den Analysen hervorgeht, beruhen die internationalen Aktivitäten britischer Universitäten vorwiegend auf wettbewerbsbasierten Koordinationsmechanismen, wohingegen sie im deutschen Fall eher mit dem Konzept der strategischen Interaktion in Verbindung zu bringen sind. Dabei lässt sich feststellen, dass die Internationalisierungsprozesse maßgeblich vom Koordinierungsmodus im jeweiligen Hochschulsystem sowie dem nationalen Kapitalismusmodell beeinflusst werden. Weiterhin wird deutlich, dass das Forschungsfeld der Hochschulbildung von einer Anwendung des Varieties-of-Capitalism-Ansatzes profitieren kann, insbesondere, wenn dies unter einer stärkeren Berücksichtigung des Staates, dessen Regulierungsfunktion entscheidend zur Differenzierung der Internationalisierungsstrategien beiträgt, geschieht.

AbstractThis paper explores the extension of collective governance to sectors without collective governance tradition. We introduce the concept of state‐led bricolage to analyze the expansion of the Swiss apprenticeship training system – in which employer associations fulfill core collective governance tasks – to economic sectors in which training had previously followed a school‐based and state‐oriented logic. In deindustrializing societies, these sectors are key for the survival of collectively governed training systems. Through a mixed‐methods analysis, we examine the reform process that led to the creation of new intermediary organizations that enable collective governance in these sectors. In addition, we compare the organizational features of these organizations with the respective organizations in the traditional crafts and industry sectors. We find that the new organizations result from state‐led bricolage. They are hybrid organizations that reflect some of the bricoleur's core policy goals and critically build on the combination of associational and state‐oriented institutional logics.

Die mangelnde Durchlässigkeit zwischen Berufs- und Hochschulbildung ist in den letzten Jahren bundesweit zu einem bildungspolitischen Kernthema geworden. Um den neuen Anforderungen der Arbeitswelt sowie individuellen Bedürfnissen gerecht zu werden, müssen die Übergänge im Bildungssystem erleichtert werden. Dieser Policy brief identifiziert mögliche Bedingungen für die erfolgreiche Etablierung durchlässiger Strukturen zwischen Berufs- und Hochschulbildung und leitet daraus konkrete Politikempfehlungen ab.

This paper explores the extension of collective governance to sectors without collective governance tradition. We introducethe concept of state-led bricolage to analyze the expansion of the Swiss apprenticeship training system – in which employerassociations fulll core collective governance tasks – to economic sectors in which training had previously followed a school-based and state-oriented logic. In deindustrializing societies, these sectors are key for the survival of collectively governedtraining systems. Through a mixed-methods analysis, we examine the reform process that led to the creation of new interme-diary organizations that enable collective governance in these sectors. In addition, we compare the organizational features ofthese organizations with the respective organizations in the traditional crafts and industry sectors. We nd that the new orga-nizations result from state-led bricolage. They are hybrid organizations that reect some of the bricoleur's core policy goalsand critically build on the combination of associational and state-oriented institutional logics

Collective training systems are based on the cooperation of multiple public and private stakeholders in order to work. However, such cooperation is not self-sustaining and depends, for instance, on public policies, capable intermediary organisations and shared logics of action. In this conceptual paper, we first review the political economy literature on cooperation in collective skill formation and find that it has given insufficient attention to the systematic comparative analysis of cooperation at the decentralised level as well as the actual social practices of cooperation. The paper then develops a multidisciplinary analytical framework that allows future research to examine decentralised cooperation at the regional, sectoral and occupational levels more systematically. This framework is grounded in a synthesis of three strands of empirical research on vocational education and training, namely the comparative political economy literature on governance, corporatism and coordination, institutional labour and societal economics as well as the educational science literature.

Liberalization pressures challenge countries to adapt their training systems. This is particularly relevant for coordinated market economies with firm-driven but collectively governed apprenticeship systems. Recent literature has identified different liberalization trajectories for these countries. For instance, segmentalism describes the increasing influence of large employers in Germany. In Denmark, state agencies manage increased flexibility in training through embedded flexibilization. In this paper, we identify a new form of embedded flexibilization, characterized by polite employer domination. We find this trajectory of liberalization in Switzerland, which represents another training system heavily based on firm involvement. We illustrate our argument with the example of short-track apprenticeship training, which has been expanded in all three mentioned countries in response to ongoing liberalization and deindustrialization pressures. In Switzerland, the relevant reform was initiated by the state while business adopted a rather passive role initially. Yet, state actors eventually stepped back and delegated key competences to employers, which implies that the employers' camp asserted their interests in the end while tolerating some concessions for the benefit of disadvantaged groups. Our process tracing reveals that policy makers used layering to implement short-tracks that enhance social inclusion, while simultaneously increasing the scope of employer cooperation. (DIPF/Orig.)

Liberalization pressures challenge countries to adapt their training systems. This is particularly relevant for coordinated market economies with firm-driven but collectively governed apprenticeship systems. Recent literature has identified different liberalization trajectories for these countries. For instance, segmentalism describes the increasing influence of large employers in Germany. In Denmark, state agencies manage increased flexibility in training through embedded flexibilization. In this paper, we identify a new form of embedded flexibilization, characterized by polite employer domination. We find this trajectory of liberalization in Switzerland, which represents another training system heavily based on firm involvement. We illustrate our argument with the example of short-track apprenticeship training, which has been expanded in all three mentioned countries in response to ongoing liberalization and deindustrialization pressures. In Switzerland, the relevant reform was initiated by the state while business adopted a rather passive role initially. Yet, state actors eventually stepped back and delegated key competences to employers, which implies that the employers' camp asserted their interests in the end while tolerating some concessions for the benefit of disadvantaged groups. Our process tracing reveals that policy makers used layering to implement short-tracks that enhance social inclusion, while simultaneously increasing the scope of employer cooperation.

Proposing an alternative to the American model, intergovernmental reform initiatives in Europe have developed and promote a comprehensive European model of skill formation. What ideals, standards, and governance are proposed in this new pan-European model? This model responds to heightened global competition among "knowledge societies" as it challenges national systems to improve. The authors thus compare this emergent European model with the historically influential models of Germany, France, Great Britain, and the United States. To what extent does the European model resemble these traditionally influential national models? The authors report findings of a theory-guided content analysis of official European policy documents in higher education and vocational training from 1998 to 2010. They find that while the European model is a bricolage that integrates diverse characteristics of influential models, the ambitious goals and standards codified in the twin Bologna and Copenhagen processes in higher education and vocational training offer a new model to compete internationally. Dozens of countries now seek to implement these principles. This comparative analysis finds different visions for the future of skill formation on both sides of the Atlantic.

Die USA, Deutschland, Frankreich und Grossbritannien stehen für jeweils unterschiedliche sowie international viel beachtete Modelle der Hochschul- und Berufsbildung. Es gibt keinen globalen Konsens darüber, welche Kriterien für den Erfolg nationaler Bildungssysteme gelten oder welchem Vorbild gefolgt werden soll. Gegenwärtige europäische Reformen, wie die Bologna- und der Kopenhagen-Prozesse, sollen die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit Europas im Vergleich zu den USA erhöhen. Doch auf welchen zentralen Vorstellungen basiert das in diesen Prozessen verbreitete, im Entstehen begriffene europäische Bildungsmodell? Mit einer Inhaltsanalyse europäischer Dokumente (Deklarationen und Kommuniqués) gehen wir der Frage nach, ob die Ideale, Ziele, Legitimationen und Standards dieses Modells eher auf eine Amerikanisierung oder auf eine bricolage verschiedener aus Europa stammender Modelle hindeuten.