Looking at Norway and the Nordic countries the fruitfulness of ‘collective skills formation’ systems is discussed from a political science perspective. Whereas ‘collective skills formation’ is focused on the political determinants of VET systems in the form of multi-partism and governmental centralization as determined by economic interests, and on the involvement of the enterprise sector in VET, other approaches include the administrative terrain of VET practice and reform . These consider public administration in different types of politico-administrative regimes, and seem useful for the understanding of mixed or hybrid systems. We argue that reform trajectories in VET are broadly determined by features of this regime type, e.g. state structures and the nature of the executive, which act in combination with the involvement of the bureaucracy, as well as the influence of external institutions and stakeholders. VET-issues have not been much related to a possible e ‘Nordic Model’, and its communalities (unitary states, decentralized and egalitarian; proportional representation; “Rechtstaat”-oriented administration, openness to external influence). Rather the differences between Nordic countries in VET have been emphasized in the literature (Greinert, Busemeyer/Trampusch). The pros and cons of the ‘collective skills formation’ concept will be discussed against the ‘politico-administrative regimes’.