Abstract
International policy transfer is a key theme within international and comparative education and has not been explored fully in the fields of vocational education, workplace learning and labour market-related adult education. The term refers to the process of exchanging and adopting policy measures, reforms, strategies and ideas from one context to another (Dolowitz and Marsh, 2000; Li and Pilz, 2021), either with or without adaption to the new context. We explore policy transfer in respect to learning, be it voluntary and purposeful, incidental and accidental or purposeful, but enforced (Phillips and Schweisfurth, 2011).
International policy transfer has a long and strong tradition in education. With respect to vocational education and training, for example, the apprenticeship training in German-speaking countries has been a role model for many countries all over the world for decades and there were countless attempts to transfer at least elements of it to other regions and countries (e.g. Euler, 2013; Oeben and Klumpp, 2021). In the field of (labour-market related) adult education, policy transfer is less obvious though it was particularly international organizations which “borrowed” concepts of lifelong learning and learnt from one another as regards learning over the lifespan (e.g. Jarvis, 2014). Policy borrowing is particularly eminent in higher education and the Bologna process is one of the most prominent examples of policy transfer. Additional examples refer to the learning outcomes orientation, qualifications frameworks or New Public Management tools finding entrance to education (such as the use of monitoring or benchmarks in education).
Against this background, this special issue is concerned with debates and theoretical perspectives on the issue of international policy transfer. We, the editors, intent to contribute to closing the gap of missing conceptualisations within the field of comparative educational research, especially in respect to labour market and employment relevant education and training. With the various contributions we point to further research needs in the field and hope to encourage more conceptual, theoretical papers on the one hand as much as empirical studies on the other hand.
The articles specifically address processes of policy transfer between donor and receiving countries, changing roles in terms of borrowing or lending policies and the role of international actors in policy transfer. The range of contributions indicates that there is more to study around policy transfer, which the concepts of policy learning and policy diffusion already imply. Overall, articles cover topics based on empirical investigation conducted within an adult education project as much as a more reflective paper about the difficulties in transferring successful VET and adult education models from one country to another. In addition, theoretical perspectives in describing and analysing the policy cycle of the transfer initiatives will be presented, identifying the epistemological positions and methodological approaches to selected initiatives in respect to educational policies, but also labour market or human resource policies. Authors critically review the importance of developing ownership and the risk of failure of policy transfer activities globally.
The first contribution, written by the editors Antje Barabasch, Sandra Bohlinger und Stefan Wolf, provides an overview about the conceptualization of policy transfer and a description of travelling VET reforms in adult and vocational education and training around the globe. Further, historical developments in terms of relations between the global North and the global South are critically examined as much as the role of culture and autonomy in decision making in policy transfer processes. More recent policy activities are further based on global industry demands for workforce development or the influence of big data and social media. The authors introduce a model to analyse policy by depicting the influence of different dynamics on decision-making for policy transfer in VET.
In our second contribution, Lukas Graf and Anna Prisca Lohse analyse preconditions for policy transfer in the cross-border region between France, Germany, and Switzerland. Their example of policy transfer derives from the field of higher education and is compared to VET in the same region. The authors focus on preconditions of cross-border policy synthesis as a core form of policy transfer. By providing an institutional analysis, the authors find that particular conditions are more favourable in higher education that in VET.
The question of how VET addresses the need for social and economic inclusion of vulnerable young adults in the UK has been addressed by Natasha Kersh and Andrea Laczik. They support the argument, that the development of policy transfer and policy learning in adult education has been influenced by the implications of contemporary global challenges, country-specific priorities, and the European agenda on inclusion. They explore how the interplay between country-specific priorities, global discourses and the European agenda on active citizenship contribute to national policies and practices for social inclusion of young adults in the UK context.
The following paper sheds light on what the authors call skills formation in Lithuania and Ukraine. Vidmantas Tūtlys, Serhii Melnyk, Daiva Bukantaitė, and Aivaras Anužis reflect on the institutional development of “skills formation”, i.e. mostly VET and higher education in two post-communist countries. Seen from a historical institutionalism perspective the authors point at what they identify as similar critical junctures in the post-communist era. They show that various processes of policy transfer were the driving forces of the “new” skills formation systems in both countries.
Junmin Li addresses the notion of culture as a core element of policy transfer. The author points at the importance of the cultural context as a background slide to develop policy transfer. She explains this at the example of policy transfer from Europe to China. A pilot study in the field of VET is used to explain how the adaption process as well as obstacles can occur and can be explained culturally.
In her contribution, Isabelle Le Mouillour examines the approaches of policy transfer in “the Francophone microcosm”. In the light of discursive institutionalism, she shows which and in which ways actors are involved with policy transfer in the field of VET. Building on document analysis and mission statements her contribution also reveals tensions in the institutional arrangements that surround VET policy and VET policy transfer.
Recognition of prior learning (RPL) has become an important means to foster equity in education and permeability between the world of education and the world of work. Based on document analysis, Markus Maurer examines what he calls “the global diffusion of RPL in vocational education and training systems”. His focus is on the transfer of RPL mechanisms between donors on the one hand and lower and middle income countries on the other hand. The author identifies RPL as an instrument in lower and middle income countries to overcome skills gaps where VET seems unreachable for a poor population.
In his reflection paper Patrick Werquin talks about the role of national qualifications frameworks (NQF) and recognition of prior learning (RPL) as concepts that are transferred between countries. While there is great interest in learning from practices abroad, implementing it in other contexts appears to be challenging. The author illustrates the example of the French system of validation of experiential learning outcomes in France and critically examines the attempts of the country to transfer it to other French speaking nations.