Suchergebnisse

Austria, Germany, and Switzerland are increasingly relying on hybridization at the nexus of vocational training and higher education to increase permeability and reform their highly praised systems of collective skill formation. This historical and organizational institutionalist study compares these countries to trace the evolution of their skill regimes from the 1960s to todays era of Europeanization, focusing especially on the impact of the Bologna and Copenhagen processes.. - Lukas Graf, Research Fellow, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB)

Austria, Germany, and Switzerland are increasingly relying on hybridization at the nexus of vocational training and higher education to increase permeability and reform their highly praised systems of collective skill formation. This historical and organizational institutionalist study compares these countries to trace the evolution of their skill regimes from the 1960s to today's era of Europeanization, focusing especially on the impact of the Bologna and Copenhagen processes.

AbstractCollective skill formation builds on a long tradition of cooperation between state actors, unions, and employer associations. As such, it can be considered strongly path‐dependent, which also refers to deeply institutionalized arrangements reconciling economic and social objectives across public and private actors. Yet, given structural changes in the economy and crises on the training market, dual apprenticeship training has been increasingly challenged to maintain its balance between economic and social objectives. In this context, I analyse the expansion of short‐track dual apprenticeship training, which represents a lower‐cost, lower‐qualification variant of traditional dual apprenticeships in Germany and Switzerland. In these countries—both of which are core examples of collective skill formation systems—such short‐tracks were expanded starting in the early 2000s. However, German unions have heavily opposed this expansion, while Swiss unions have actively supported it. I carry out a comparative historical‐institutional analysis to address this puzzle and unpack the respective change processes. Focussing on the dominant governance modes, I find that in Switzerland, the expansion of short‐tracks is linked to path reinforcement in terms of a liberal corporatist system characterized by polite employer domination. In contrast, in Germany I observe that the developments around short‐tracks are associated with a path switch from a social to a more liberal collective skill formation arrangement but one that is linked to rather 'hostile' employer domination.

European cross‐border regions often display substantial political and economic activity. A key example is the French‐German‐Swiss Upper Rhine region, where three distinct national governance models come together. In this dynamic cross‐border industry cluster, traditional political‐administrative units often do not meet the functional needs of employers and (future) employees. This comparative institutional analysis refers to Varieties of Capitalism and Local Production Systems perspectives to explore the operations of this cluster. It finds two main patterns through which education and training are embedded in the cross‐border context: on the one hand, the leveraging of distinct institutional advantages in the different parts of the region and, on the other, the creation of cross‐border collective competition goods in the form of jointly provided educational institutions. Through these two strategies, local actors within the cross‐border industry cluster can turn their peripheral location into an institutional advantage.

The corporatist-governed dual-training system has been a key example of collective governance in the German capitalist model. However, high-end dual-training is increasingly being offered within post-secondary higher education. Here, firms and universities, not chambers of commerce or trade unions, are the actors negotiating the curricula of and access to a range of 'dual-study programmes'. This article traces the emergence and expansion of this more firm-specific skills provision system, which diminishes the beneficial constraints for strategic cooperation and, in turn, the provision of collective training standards and transferable skills. The case study builds on the 'gradual institutional change' taxonomy, while pointing to the potential benefits of using different modes of change in combination. Through analysing firms' strategies to initiate change in an institutional grey area between established socio-economic spheres, the article shows how layering, conversion and drift can become interlinked and how each individual process can trigger and feed the next. (DIPF/Orig.)

The corporatist-governed dual-training system has been a key example of collective governance in the German capitalist model. However, high-end dual-training is increasingly being offered within post-secondary higher education. Here, firms and universities, not chambers of commerce or trade unions, are the actors negotiating the curricula of and access to a range of 'dual-study programmes'. This article traces the emergence and expansion of this more firm-specific skills provision system, which diminishes the beneficial constraints for strategic cooperation and, in turn, the provision of collective training standards and transferable skills. The case study builds on the 'gradual institutional change' taxonomy, while pointing to the potential benefits of using different modes of change in combination. Through analysing firms' strategies to initiate change in an institutional grey area between established socio-economic spheres, the article shows how layering, conversion and drift can become interlinked and how each individual process can trigger and feed the next.

AbstractIn both Germany and the United States, employers search for new strategies to recruit and train people in times of a dynamically evolving economy and rising educational expectations on the part of individuals. In this context, we observe the proliferation of work-based higher education programmes in both countries. This development challenges the common classification found in the political economy and educational policy literature that distinguishes between collectively governed dual apprenticeships in Germany and market-driven on-the-job training in the US. The paper proposes an alternative conceptualization that identifies significant similarities in the governance mode of work-based higher education across the two countries. Based on expert interviews and document analysis, the institutional analysis focuses on complex multi-actor governance constellations at the nexus of vocational training and higher education and explores consequences for contemporary policy-making in advanced skill formation.

In both Germany and the United States, employers search for new strategies to recruit and train people in times of a dynamically evolving economy and rising educational expectations on the part of individuals. In this context, we observe the proliferation of work-based higher education programmes in both countries. This development challenges the common classification found in the political economy and educational policy literature that distinguishes between collectively governed dual apprenticeships in Germany and market-driven on-the-job training in the US. The paper proposes an alternative conceptualization that identifies significant similarities in the governance mode of work-based higher education across the two countries. Based on expert interviews and document analysis, the institutional analysis focuses on complex multi-actor governance constellations at the nexus of vocational training and higher education and explores consequences for contemporary policy-making in advanced skill formation. (DIPF/Orig.)

Austria, Germany and Switzerland are renowned for their extensive systems of collective vocational skill formation, which, however, have developed largely in separation from higher education. This divide has become increasingly contested as a result of a variety of socioeconomic factors that have led to an increasing demand for higher level skills. Do the three countries deal with these challenges in similar ways? The comparative analysis is based on process tracing from the 1960s to 2013 and builds on historical institutionalism as well as several dozen expert interviews with key stakeholders. A key finding is that all three countries have developed hybrid forms of work-based academic education that combine elements of vocational training and higher education. However, in Austria and Switzerland, these hybrids have been integrated into the traditional model of collective governance, whereas the German case signifies a departure from this model. (DIPF/Orig.)

Austria, Germany and Switzerland are renowned for their extensive systems of collective vocational skill formation, which, however, have developed largely in separation from higher education. This divide has become increasingly contested as a result of a variety of socioeconomic factors that have led to an increasing demand for higher level skills. Do the three countries deal with these challenges in similar ways? The comparative analysis is based on process tracing from the 1960s to 2013 and builds on historical institutionalism as well as several dozen expert interviews with key stakeholders. A key finding is that all three countries have developed hybrid forms of work-based academic education that combine elements of vocational training and higher education. However, in Austria and Switzerland, these hybrids have been integrated into the traditional model of collective governance, whereas the German case signifies a departure from this model.

Austria, Germany, and Switzerland are increasingly relying on hybridization at the nexus of vocational training and higher education to increase permeability and reform their highly praised systems of collective skill formation. This historical and organizational institutionalist study compares these countries to trace the evolution of their skill regimes from the 1960s to today's era of Europeanization, focusing especially on the impact of the Bologna and Copenhagen processes.

Austria, Germany, and Switzerland are increasingly relying on hybridization at the nexus of vocational training and higher education to increase permeability and reform their highly praised systems of collective skill formation. This historical and organizational institutionalist study compares these countries to trace the evolution of their skill regimes from the 1960s to today's era of Europeanization, focusing especially on the impact of the Bologna and Copenhagen processes.

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.