Governance Revisited

A. New Governance

The term “governance” has different meanings. The contributions in this section focus on governance as a normative model implying a specific mode of government. In this context, normativity is often signaled by the epithet “new,” such as “New Governance” (Ball & Junemann, 2012) or “Neue Steuerung” in German discourse (Altrichter & Maag Merki, 2016). New Governance includes the ideas of decentralized, anti-hierarchical network structures, and quality assurance or monitoring systems that rely on standards and output measures (ibid.; Ball & Junemann, 2012; Colebatch, 2014; Langer, 2019). In other words, it intends to turn away from state-ruled “bureaucratic-hierarchical” (Hangartner & Heinzer, 2016) steering for the benefit of a decentralized, participative network, with “negotiations between actors equaling one another” (Altrichter & Maag Merki, 2016; Bolder, Bremer & Epping, 2017; Kuhlee, 2017; Langer, 2019, p. 28).

There are only a few studies examining the impact of this New Governance regime in VET. If the subject is put into the spotlight, the role of the state is central. Indeed, some studies – in line with the idea of New Governance – claim a loss of state significance for the benefit of decentralized actors (Bolder et al., 2017; in particular, Kuhlee, 2017). Others observe the paradoxical effect whereby, in the wake of New Governance, the authority of the state increases rather than decreases (Berner, 2013; Colebatch, 2014; Gonon, 2016). The authors of this book section open up new perspectives to this discussion by looking at New Governance processes not only from a national but also from an international as well as a regional perspective and by following up “long”(er) historical trajectories.

Christopher Winch provides an overview of England’s governance trajectory from the 1960s until the present and emphasizes, in particular, the introduction and impact of a tool going hand in hand with the New Governance discourse, namely New Public Management. He argues that England acts as a liberal market but – as it depends on a strong state regarding funding and provision of qualifications – not as a laissez faire economy. Drawing upon Hume, the author highlights the challenges that these state interventions encounter and concludes that without greater involvement of civil society, especially the active integration of trade unions and employer associations, the system is unlikely to succeed.

B. Governance by Professional Associations

Collective skill formation systems are characterized by high public commitment and a high degree of company involvement, be it with regard to financing, administration, or the content of training (Busemeyer & Trampusch, 2012). The latter is mostly coordinated through neo-corporatist institutions (i.e., intermediary or professional associations) that also underpin firms’ training provision (Strebel et al., 2020). Compared to the rich literature on skill formation and despite the importance of professional associations in collective skill formation systems, they (particularly those acting at sub-national level) have received little attention (ibid.; Emmenegger et al., 2019).

However, such a research focus is important given the assumption that collective action is getting more and more difficult. Globalization, deindustrialization, and digitalization provoke diversity and as such a challenge for collective governance (Bonoli & Emmenegger, 2021; Emmenegger et al., 2019). The heterogeneity makes it difficult for professional associations to agree on common interests and common skill profiles, provoking processes such as de-collectivization and segmentalism (though the EU actively supports the involvement of social partners in skill formation systems) (ibid.).

The three contributions in this book section shed light (looking from different perspectives) on the “inner workings” of professional associations. How and with whom do professional associations cooperate? What are the specifics, opportunities, and challenges of associational governance or of a neo-corporatist VET culture? The three chapters focus on Switzerland as a prototypical case of collective skill formation systems. In contrast to Germany, membership of firms in associations is voluntary in Switzerland, and there is no prescription regarding the type of organization (Emmenegger et al., 2019; Strebel et al., 2020). In consequence, the Swiss associational landscape is rather heterogenous, as are the associational modes of governance (Bürgi & Gonon, 2021). This heterogeneity and its implications are addressed in the three chapters as follows:

Alexandra Strebel, Carmen Baumeler, and Sonja Engelage examine how associations supporting small occupations (re)acted after the aforementioned Swiss VET reform in 2002 put their existence at risk. In more concrete terms, the authors trace which institutional work associations developed to deal with the demands of this reform and how the diverse outcomes can be interpreted. Based on institutional theories, the authors analyze and compare three small occupations: piano makers, weavers, and cable-car mechanics. By shedding light on the associations’ everyday work, they carve out strategies on regulative, normative, and cognitive levels used to create, maintain, or adapt occupations. Two key findings are highlighted here: Firstly, the authors reveal that the Swiss cultural tradition of apprenticeships supports the work of associations in general. Secondly, they show that success or failure is determined by an association’s (or its leader’s) institutional work, rather than labor market demands.

C. The Interplay of Governance and Learning Arrangements

Governance is not only important on a macro level, but, especially in a globalized world, the linkage between the realm of work and schools has to be closer. On the one hand, this makes learning arrangements more complex because a lot of actors claim their often-diverse interests, but on the other hand, it includes different aspects of qualifications, which are needed (see Streeck, Hilbert, Kevelaer, Maier & Weber, 1987). In order to keep up with technological change and adjust learning sites to accommodate a more flexible system, new forms of governance should be taken into account in order to also organize vocational education and learning on a micro and meso level (Mirbach, 2004). New Governance has an impact at this level too. As such, it does not aim to regulate in detail the process of learning but rather to define outcomes and standards in order to flexibilize learning arrangements (see Rahn, 2009). Thus, the focus in regulation of learning sites or pathways is shifting more toward learning outcomes as a new form of VET governance (Lassnigg, 2012).

However, recent studies suggest that the interplay between workplace and learning has to be intensified. A possible answer is the provision of hybrid qualifications (see Bohlinger, Haake, Jørgensen, Toviainen & Wallo, 2019, p. 9). One of the drivers of challenging skill formation on a national (macro) level and its actual shape in a specific location seems to be the global division of labor and global supply of an educated workforce. Within a global context, skills and competences are tailored more toward the requirements of transnational companies (see Lauder, Brown & Ashton, 2017, p. 419).

Thus, not surprisingly, a commonality in most of the papers is a not always outspoken tendency to bring together different and even contradictory aims, that is, to hybridize structures and educational settings.