Vocational education and training (VET) is traditionally understood as a primarily national policy field that is particularly characterised by national traditions and path dependencies. However, numerous research studies in recent years demonstrate that VET is no longer only organised at national level. In addition to an already established strand of research on the Europeanisation of national VET policy (Busemeyer 2009; Trampusch 2008; Bohlinger / Fischer 2015; Münk / Scheiermann 2018) and an ongoing interest in the international policy transfer of vocational education and training (Li / Pilz 2023), there is now also work that addresses phenomena that have received fewer attention so far, such as the role of international organisations (Klassen submitted; Vanderhoven 2023; Maurer 2008, 2012) or cross-border cooperation between regions in different countries (Graf 2021). This work raises the fundamental question of the extent to which VET has developed into an international policy field in its own right.
In this paper, we propose to analyse those activities as different types of international VET governance. A governance perspective opens up a view of political design processes that do not emanate solely from a hierarchically conceived state. By international VET governance, we mean the organisation of structures, processes and/or content of VET that transcends national borders. This definition comprises several elements. Firstly, it refers to activities that transcend national borders and therefore cannot be understood exclusively as part of national VET policy. Secondly, these are formative activities that aim to address and shape vocational education and training, for example in material form (e.g. through project funding) or in non-material form (e.g. through standardisation). Thirdly, we focus international VET governance on the organisation of structures, processes and/or content of VET. In doing so, we draw on the classic distinction between polity, politics and policy, which was also used by Kutscha (2010), for example, to define national VET policy, but extend it to include policy beyond the nation state.
In order to differentiate different types of international VET governance, we derived four governance dimensions out of the governance literature: Firstly, as mentioned above, international governance is characterised by the specific diversity of actors involved. These include, in particular, states, international and supranational organisations, non-governmental organisations, transnational public-private partnerships, but also companies and trade unions, which are particularly relevant in the field of vocational education and training. Depending on the policy field, different actors are active in different weightings. Actors interact with each other in certain actor constellations. The identification of such actor constellations provides an entry point for describing international governance activities in more detail. Secondly, the governance activities within these actor constellations are based on certain institutional arrangements, i.e. rules, structures and processes that set the framework for the interaction between actors. These can be formally codified, for example in international treaties or co-operation agreements, or they can have an informal character and be based, for example, on shared interests or convictions. Institutional arrangements thus form the basis on which governance activities take place. Thirdly, governance takes place by means of specific instruments that are available and used by actors. The academic literature identifies a range of different governance instruments. For the area of education policy, Parreira do Amaral (2015) identified four governance instruments – norm setting, agenda setting, funding and coordination of activities (Parreira do Amaral 2015, 374). More generally, Braun and Giraud (2014, 182–188) differentiated between the instruments of ‘regulation’, ‘financing’, ‘structuring’ and ‘persuasion’. Given the dynamic nature of governance activities, it seems impossible to compile an exhaustive and fully comprehensive list of governance instruments.

The typology presents six types of international VET governance. It is based, on the one hand, on observations of political practice in international VET and the literature describing it and, on the other hand, on political science terminology used to describe different types of international policy. Methodologically speaking, it is therefore a combination of a deductive and inductive approach, which was created both from the observation of reality and derived from theoretical concepts (Lehnert 2007). The aim of this approach was to transfer the various phenomena of international vocational education and training policy into a typology that depicts the differences and similarities of individual phenomena at a medium level of abstraction (cf. Lehnert 2007) in order to develop an organisational system of distinct types (cf. Collier 2008). In this approximation process, we have conceptualised six types of international VET governance, which differ sufficiently in the characteristics of the four dimensions - actor constellation, institutional form, governance instruments and the role of the state. Overall, we have thus created a descriptive typology (Collier et al. 2012) that serves to identify and describe the phenomena to be analysed; in principle, typologies can also be used to highlight causal links (Elman 2005; Bennett and Elman 2006). The six types include bilateral, multilateral, intergovernmental, supranational, interregional and transnational VET governance. While in the bilateral and multilateral form, only states cooperate with each other, intergovernmental and supranational VET governance describe the political relationship between states and supranational organisations. In contrast, the interregional form refers to cooperation between state regions, while transnational VET governance encompasses the relationships between private actors and between private and public actors. The six types are presented below. In doing so, we first define the respective form, drawing both on political science concepts and on the dimensions of international VET governance.

The six types of international Vocational Education and Training (VET) governance are distinguished by their actor constellations. Three horizontal types (bilateral, multilateral, interregional) involve states or regions with formal equality, yet imbalances persist, especially in donor-recipient dynamics. Multilateral governance, influenced by economic positions, may favor certain states. Vertical types (intergovernmental, supranational) have formally organized actors at different levels, but power imbalances can occur. Vertical constellations, like in the European Union (EU), may lack a clear balance of power, with states not always implementing international organization recommendations. Transnational VET governance exhibits mixed types, featuring horizontal relationships, like Unions4VET, and vertical public-private partnerships, as seen in the Global Apprenticeship Network. Institutional arrangements underpinning international VET governance are usually formal but can be informal. Supranational governance, like in the EU, relies on formal international treaties, while bilateral cooperation relies on intergovernmental agreements. Multilateral cooperation in the G7 is informally rooted in shared scientific interests, and transnational governance, like the Global Apprenticeship Network, has informal aspects. Although having a constitution, the network allows flexible membership without elaborate formal processes. Governance instruments vary from material (financing, technical cooperation) to non-material (knowledge production, discursive dissemination, standard-setting, persuasion). Bilateral and certain international organizations (e.g., the World Bank) emphasize material instruments, while non-material instruments are prevalent in intergovernmental governance (knowledge production) and supranational governance (standard-setting). The state's role in international VET governance ranges from active (e.g., donor, negotiator) to passive (e.g., recipient) or enabling (e.g., framing cooperation). Unlike its extensive role in national VET policy, the state's international role has limited maneuverability, requiring nuanced strategies for influencing outcomes.

Bennett, A., & Elman, C. 2006. "Case Study Methods in the International Relations Subfield." *Comparative Political Studies* 40 (2): 170-195. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414006296346. Bohlinger, Sandra, and Andreas Fischer (Hrsg.). 2015. *Lehrbuch europäische Berufsbildungspolitik: Grundlagen, Herausforderungen und Perspektiven.* Bielefeld, 2015. Braun, Dietmar, and Olivier Giraud. 2014. "Politikinstrumente im Kontext von Staat, Markt und Governance." In *Lehrbuch der Politikfeldanalyse,* 179-208. Berlin, München, Boston: De Gruyter Oldenbourg. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110408072.179. Busemeyer, Marius R. 2009. *Die Europäisierung der deutschen Berufsbildungspolitik: Sachzwang oder Interessenpolitik?* Bonn, 2009. 16 S. + Literaturangaben. [Online] Available at: http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/id/ipa/06512.pdf. Collier, David, Jody LaPorte, and Jason Seawright. 2012. "Putting Typologies to Work: Concept Formation, Measurement, and Analytic Rigor." *Political Research Quarterly* 65 (1): 217–32. [Online] Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23209571. Graf, L. 2021. "Leveraging Regional Differences and Cross‐border Collective Institutions: The Case of Skill Formation and Employment in the Border Region of France, Germany, and Switzerland." *Swiss Political Science Review* 27 (2): 369-389. DOI: 10.1111/spsr.12442. Klassen, Johannes. submitted. "International organisations in vocational education and training: a literature review." *Journal of Vocational Education and Training.* Kutscha, G. 2010. "Berufsbildungssystem und Berufsbildungspolitik." In *Handbuch Berufs- und Wirtschaftspädagogik,* edited by R. Nickolaus, G. Pätzold, H. Reinisch & T. Tramm, 311–322. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt. Lehnert, Matthias. 2007. "Sinn und Unsinn von Typologien." In *Forschungsdesign in der Politikwissenschaft. Probleme – Strategien – Anwendungen,* edited by Thomas Gschwend and Frank Schimmelfennig, 91-120. Frankfurt/New York: Campus Verlag. Li, Junmin, & Matthias Pilz. 2023. "International transfer of vocational education and training: a literature review." *Journal of Vocational Education & Training* 75 (2): 185-218. DOI: 10.1080/13636820.2020.1847566. Maurer, 2008. "Jenseits globaler Kräfte? Berufspraktische Fächer an allgemeinbildenden Sekundarschulen in Sri Lanka und Bangladesh." *Zeitschrift für Pädagogik* 53 (2): 200-214. Maurer, 2012. "Structural elaboration of technical and vocational education and training systems in developing countries: the cases of Sri Lanka and Bangladesh." *Comparative Education* 48 (4): 487-503. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2012.702011. Parreira do Amaral, Marcelo. 2015. "Der Beitrag der Educational Governance zur Analyse der Internationalen Bildungspolitik." *Bildung und Erziehung* 69 (3): 367–384. Trampusch, C. 2008. "Jenseits von Anpassungsdruck und Lernen: die Europäisierung der deutschen Berufsbildung." *Zeitschrift Für Staats- Und Europawissenschaften (ZSE) / Journal for Comparative Government and European Policy* 6 (4): 577–605. [Online] Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/261. Vanderhoven, Ellen. 2023. "Unpacking the global apprenticeship agenda: a comparative synthesis of literature from international organizations in the education policy field." *Globalisation, Societies and Education.* DOI: 10.1080/14767724.2023.2252358.