In the aftermath of the 2008 economic and financial crisis, interest in the dual apprenticeship model, particularly the approaches in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland (DACH) increased significantly (Gessler, 2020, p.32). The reason for heightened international attention is the apparently strong performance of this model in keeping youth unemployment at bay during the crisis and beyond. Today, dual apprenticeships are subject to international cooperation activities carried out not only by actors of the DACH region but also by several international organisations, including the OECD and the ILO.
Thus far, scholars interested in international cooperation in vocational education and training (VET) have focused mainly on issues revolving around the practice of transferring dual apprenticeships from one context to another (Li and Pilz, 2021, chap.2.3). The theorisation of cooperation itself has been attempted only to a limited extent. If at all, hitherto available research resorts to the analytical toolbox provided by policy analysis (see for instance Barabasch and Wolf, 2009; 2010; 2012). However, we argue that policy literature does not sufficiently contribute to understanding the rules, practices, and narratives (Lowndes and Roberts, 2013) that guide actors in the process of cooperation and that ultimately shape its outcome.
Offering an alternative approach, we employ a multi-level-governance perspective that is combined with elements of neo-institutionalism, seeking to provide a holistic analytical framework for processes of international VET cooperation. Our conceptual starting point is what we refer to as the interaction space in which different actors and institutions relevant on the international, national, and subnational level engage. In a second step, changes over time during the process of cooperation are captured using a typology of four phases.
The interaction space reflects the multi-level governance prevalent in VET cooperation. Besides the international level, also national, and sub-national levels of the involved countries must be considered since each level represents a particular set of actors as well as institutions. For the actors involved, we argue that the answer to the question of who cooperates is not simply “states” or “governments”. Rather, we emphasise that the universe of cooperation actors is much more complex, including national and sub-national governmental and non-governmental actors and organisations, multilateral bodies, para-statal entities, companies, associations, and labour unions – at either side of the interaction space. For institutions, understood as expectation structures (Katznelson and Weingast, 2005; Battilana and D’Aunno, 2009), we also propose a variety of possible forms such as narratives, financial instruments, or political agendas. These institutions can be directly or indirectly influenced by the actors in the interaction space, while institutions in turn shape actors’ preferences and room for manoeuvre. As a first empirical step, then, a case-specific mapping of actors and institutions is in order.
As a second step, we link the interaction space with the processual nature of international VET cooperation which we suggest follows four stages, namely: initiation, project development, implementation, and evaluation. Drawing on neo-institutionalist theory we argue that it is essential to analyse the way in which actors and institutions interact in each cooperation phase, not least to identify conflicts, adaptations, and other critical developments throughout the cooperation process.

We exemplify the application of the interaction space by focusing on Germany as one of the most active lenders in international VET cooperation, particularly regarding the dual apprenticeship. For our paper, we draw on a meta research project (wb-ibb) during which German international VET cooperation projects funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) were monitored, each for about three years. From the available sample of VET cooperation projects, we chose those implemented as bilateral cooperation projects between the BMBF and partner countries. The BMBF’s bilateral VET projects are operated within a common political framework and therefore represent a group of most similar cases (Gerring, 2007, pp.131–139). Applying this filter, three projects remained and represent our empirical cases for this contribution: a German-Italian, a German-Indian and a German-South African cooperation project. wb-ibb produced qualitative expert interview and quantitative survey data. The data is project-specific; thus, it was compiled only involving those directly associated with the respective project. The data is limited in that it largely provides insights regarding German cooperation actors and relevant institutions. However, field work in Italy was conducted, focusing on semi-structured expert interviews with local project actors. In addition, we screened German government publications and web content about international VET cooperation and consulted policy papers issued by international organisations active in this field. We analysed the above-mentioned interviews, protocols, and policy papers through theory-driven qualitative content analysis (Kuckartz, 2016). In addition, statistical analysis of the survey data was carried out. Our perspective is necessarily limited as we examine cooperation mainly through the lens of German actors involved in three cases of bilateral cooperation. In addition, we do not explicitly address the international level of the interaction space. Still, in exemplifying the application of our analytical framework we suggest it suits analyses of, and explanation-building for, any process of international (VET) cooperation.

For the initiation phase, we conclude that dual apprenticeship increasingly serves as a global blueprint for fighting youth unemployment. The underlying narrative or myth is perpetuated by a range particularly of national actors from the DACH region as well as international actors. As a result, more countries consider implementing dual apprenticeship and turn to international cooperation to adapt to the expectations derived from discourses on youth unemployment and on increasing VET’s relevance for the labour market. In the project development phase, different expectations of the national and sub-national actors involved must be satisfied. Germany for example defined five core principles of VET as underlying guideline for all VET cooperation projects. Actors from the borrowing countries enter cooperation with their own normative framework and political goals but at the same time have to act upon constraints imposed by the lending partner. At this stage, a frequent outcome is “talk” (Brunsson 2006) that is highly contradictory by itself but also in relation to the actual goals of the actors of the borrowing and lending state. For the implementation phase, sub-national actors “on the ground” take over, often with their very own preferences and goals. Not seldom, the “talk” (Brunsson 2006) from the development phase clashes with “action” (Brunsson 2006) in the implementation phase. Officially, however, actors stick to the contents of the “talk” (Brunsson 2006) as not to risk negative evaluation and to ensure future cooperation mandates. Finally, during the evaluation phase, we find that while sub-nationally implemented projects aim at presenting achievements there is a perceived necessity to indicate unsuccessful subprojects and yet unaddressed demands to legitimate continuation of cooperation activities (see for evaluations also Kühl, 2008, pp. 85–110).

Barabasch, A.; Wolf, S. (2009). Die Policy-Praxis der Anderen: Policy Transfer in der Bildungs- und Berufsbildungsforschung. ZEP, Vol. 32 (4), pp.22–27. Barabasch, A. & Wolf, S. (2010). VET Policy Transfer in Ägypten, Malysia und Korea. In: Friese, M., Fürstenau, B., Tenberg, R., Wuttke, E. (Eds.): Dimensionen der Berufsbildung. Bildungspolitische, gesetzliche, organisationale und unterrichtliche Aspekte als Einflussgrößen auf berufliches Lernen. Opladen: Budrich, pp.123–134. Barabasch, A.; Wolf, S. (2012). Policy Transfer in der Berufsbildung in den Ländern China und USA. Die berufsbildende Schule, 64 (5), pp.161–166. Battilana, J. & D’Aunno, T. (2009): Institutional work and the paradox of embedded agency. In: Lawrence, T.B.; Suddaby, R. and Leca, B. (Eds.): Institutional Work. Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.31–58. Brunsson, N. (2006). The Organization of Hypocrisy: Talk, decisions and actions in organizations (2. Auflage). Copenhagen Business School Press. Gerring, J. (2007). Case study research: Principles and practices. Cambridge University Press. Gessler, M. (2020). Internationaler Berufsbildungstransfer: Der Kontext macht den Unterschied. Berufsbildung. Zeitschrift Für Theorie-Praxis-Dialog, 74(184), 32–34. Katznelson, I. & Weingast, B. (2005): Intersections between Historical and Rational Choice Institutionalism. In: Katznelson, I.; Weingast, B. (Eds.): Preferences and Situations. Points of Intersection between Historical and Rational Choice Institutionalism. New York: Russel Sage Foundation, pp.2–24. Kuckartz, U. (2016). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung (3. überarbeitete Auflage). Grundlagentexte Methoden. Beltz Juventa. Kühl, S. (2008). Coaching und Supervision: Zur personenorientierten Beratung in Organisationen (1. Aufl.). Lehrbuch. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Li, J. & Pilz, M. (2021). International transfer of vocational education and training: a literature review. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2020.1847566 Lowndes, V. & Roberts, M. (2013): Why Institutions Matter. The New Institutionalism in Political Science. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, Palgrave Macmillan.