Torgeir Nyen, Anna Hagen Tønder 11 Cooperation and Reform in Vocational and Training

In recent years national models of skill formation and vocational education and training have attracted attention from a large number of researchers. In the literature on varieties of (VoC), vocational education and training (VET) is one of the complementary institutions that distinguish liberal market economies (LMEs) from coordinated market economies (CMEs). LMEs, such as the United States, tend to encourage the acquisition of general skills. CMEs, such as Germany, place a stronger emphasis on vocational training as an alternative to or in addition to academic skills and higher education (Hall & Soskice, 2001). There is a broad consensus in the literature that different training regimes and the skills they promote have important economic and distributional effects. One limitation to this literature is that the categories provided are extremely broad and cannot account for variation within the different models. While all the Scandinavian countries can be classified as coordinated market economies, there are, as we will return to, major differences between the VET systems in Norway, Sweden and Denmark. In the comparative literature on national skill formation systems a number of more fine-grained typologies have been developed. The main dimensions that are applied in order to distinguish between different models are the structure and content of training, how the training is regulated, where the training takes place and the degree of involvement of the state and of firms in vocational education and training. One widely used typology distinguishes between market-based, state- based and corporatist training regimes (Greinert, 2004). A liberal market economy model is characterized by weak government regulations. Vocational training takes place mainly in the workplace and is provided by individual companies based on firm-specific skills demands. Britain and the United States often serve as examples. In a state-regulated bureaucratic model, vocational education is primarily governed by the state, whereas the social partners and private firms play a more limited role. The training is mainly school-based or mixed with shorter practice periods in firms. Training tends to focus on general academic and broad vocational subjects, with less emphasis on vocational specialization. More vocation-specific training is to a large extent developed in the workplace but is not part of the formal training. Sweden and France are typical examples of state-based regimes. In a dual corporate model, the social partners play a significant role in vocational education and training. Vocational education is formally regulated by the state and based on a cooperation model in which the social partners as well as educational authorities are involved. Firms play an important role in the provision of training. Apprenticeship training or practical training in the workplace is often combined with school-based training through some 202 Cooperation and Reform in Vocational Education and Training

kind of dual system. Germany is the classic example, and Denmark is often mentioned as another country with a dual corporate model. In this chapter we focus on institutional change in Norwegian VET. Norway provides an interesting case for several reasons. With a few exceptions (e.g. Thelen, 2014), Norway is rarely mentioned in the literature. In her influential study of How Institutions Evolve, Kathleen Thelen studied the of skills in Germany, Britain, the United States and Japan (Thelen, 2004). These countries are classic cases that are often related in comparative studies. A recent volume on the political economy of skill formation includes country studies from the Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria and Denmark in addition to Germany (Busemeyer & Trampusch, 2012). The Norwegian model is an interesting case because it can be characterized as a mixed model with elements from different skills regimes. After Reform 94, the Norwegian model can be classified as a hybrid between a state-based and a corporatist model (Olsen, Høst & Michelsen, 2008). One element from the state- based regime is that initial VET is deeply integrated in the national education system. School-based education and apprenticeship training are both regulated by national written curricula. Formal decision-making power on issues regarding the content and structure of the trades rests with the national education authorities. However, there is an established corporatist infrastructure of tripartite bodies with advisory functions at the national and regional levels. The two initial years of school-based education and training include a considerable share of general academic subjects like Norwegian, English, social science and mathematics. The content of school-based vocational courses is quite broad (with relevance for a number of different trades). The intention is to provide vocational students with broad and general skills in addition to the more vocation-specific skills. Norway has a unitary school system at the upper secondary level, with vocational programmes and general academic programmes offered within the same schools and with opportunities to combine vocational and academic training or to switch from a vocational programme to an academic programme. In these respects there are similarities between the Norwegian and the Swedish models. On the other hand, the role of apprenticeship training constitutes an important difference between the Norwegian and the Swedish models and brings the Norwegian VET model closer to the dual system in the Danish model than the school-based Swedish model. During the last two years of initial vocational education and training, students in the Norwegian model are apprentices employed by a training company. As apprentices, they receive wages that are regulated by collective agreements. The model is dual, both in terms of where the training takes place and in terms of a decision-making structure based on tripartite cooperation at the national and regional levels. Over the last decades VET as an institution has undergone substantial changes. A challenge to the VoC literature and to the different typologies of VET is to explain where the different models and institutions come from and how they change (Thelen, 2004). An analysis of institutional change in VET needs to deal with why institutions Cooperation and Reform in Vocational Education and Training 203

sometimes are “reproduced” and why they sometimes change more profoundly. The history of VET in Norway serves as an example of how substantial changes do not necessarily require external shocks but can be endogenously motivated either by political reform or through more gradual change processes. To understand such changes, a historical-institutionalist analysis needs to study the actors’ interests and power bases, while at the same time acknowledging that existing institutions may influence the choices made by the actors involved (Thelen, 2004, 2010). An institution like a VET system is the result of power struggles, negotiations and compromises between individual employers, between different groups of employers, between employers and labour and between the social partners and the state. The system as such will be inherently unstable as actors seek to change the institutions, especially if changing external conditions also changes the strategic interest or power base of some of the actors. In the analysis that follows, we describe how a long-standing coalition between employers in crafts and manufacturing had a major impact on the development of the current dual model of VET in Norway. Until the 1950s, apprenticeship training constituted the core of vocational training in crafts and industry. State regulation was weak, and the social partners had great autonomy in their regulation of the training. The post-war period was characterized by stronger state involvement and the gradual development of a vocational school system. Still, the social partners had considerable autonomy in the development, implementation and control of apprenticeship training. In this period, Norwegian VET could be defined as a corporatist model. The scope of the model, however, was confined to craft and industry, and the number of new apprenticeship contracts that were signed every year was low. In the 1980s, new legislation expanded the scope of apprenticeship training and provided an institutional framework for tripartite cooperation in VET. The changes contributed to a revival of apprenticeship training in Norway. However, the connections between school-based education and apprenticeship training were weak. In the 1990s, Reform 94 drove the content of VET towards more general skills and broader vocational skills. The dual model was institutionalized as the standard model in all vocational programmes in upper secondary education, including sectors without strong traditions of apprenticeship training. The changes in content and structure of VET can be seen as a compromise solution that served the interests of employers in manufacturing and services more than the interests of employers within traditional crafts and construction. However, a further strengthening of apprenticeship training through policy measures, including increased state funding to training companies, made the employers within crafts and construction accept the reform. In recent years, tensions within the VET system have become more manifest. Changes to the current model have been proposed by several actors, among them the employers’ association within construction. Increased labour immigration has altered the veto power of employers in construction and in the service sector and is a factor that could generate changes that lead to greater heterogeneity in the Norwegian VET model in the future. 204 Cooperation and Reform in Vocational Education and Training

11.1 Historical Background: A Strong Coalition Between Employers in Crafts and Industry

In Norway, like many other European countries, apprenticeship training initially developed within the guild system. In the 1800s, government policy was characterized by economic liberalization. A law passed in 1839 brought severe restrictions on the guilds, and new laws passed in 1866 and 1871 led to a complete abolition of the traditional guild system in Norway. With the new handicraft legislation, legal provisions for apprenticeship training and journeyman’s examinations were removed, meaning that in principle any man could practice a trade without skill certification. The liberalization of the handicraft sector led to a significant weakening of the apprenticeship system in the late 1800s (Kvikstad, 1998). After several unsuccessful attempts to re-establish regulations for apprenticeship training and trade examinations, the craft masters joined forces with employers in the rapidly expanding manufacturing sector. The Norwegian Association for Crafts and Industry (“Den Norske Fællesforening for Haandværk og Industri”) was established in 1886 and would become a major player in the development of vocational education and training in Norway. The alliance between crafts and industry in the early industrial period in Norway strengthened the influence of the employers as a strong collective actor. Proposed measures from the newly established Association for Crafts and Industry and the Crafts Association of Christiania1 (“Christiania Haandværkerforening”) had a substantial impact on a new handicraft act that was passed by Parliament in 1894. According to the new legislation a man who wanted to practice a trade regulated by the law had to pass a journeyman’s examination judged by masters within the relevant trade. The new legislation largely met the requirements that the craft masters and their associations had been trying to achieve for decades and provided a new foundation for apprenticeship training in Norway at the turn of the century. With the industrialization of the late 1800s, work within crafts and workshops gradually changed. Craft masters were increasingly seen as employers, whereas journeymen saw themselves as wage earners. The first trade unions and the first social democratic unions in Norway were formed by journeymen in Christiania (Kvikstad, 1998).

11.1.1 Apprenticeship Training in Industry Regulated in Collective Agreements

In her comparative analysis of skill formation systems in Germany, Britain, the United States and Japan, Thelen (2004) documents that a decisive factor explaining the

1 Oslo was called Christiania (or Kristiania) from 1624-1924. Historical Background: A Strong Coalition Between Employers in Crafts and Industry 205

different trajectories of skill formation was the strategies of leading firms in skill- intensive industries and that the machine and metalworking industries were of special importance. As we will see in this section, these industries also had a major influence in the development of the Norwegian VET model through collective agreements and through the establishment of vocational schools. In the period from 1890 to 1915 the number of industrial workers in Norway more than doubled (Fuglum, 1978). The industrialization process had a strong impact on the employers’ willingness to invest in apprenticeship training. More routine work meant that many tasks could be performed by unskilled workers. The tendency to displace apprentices and skilled workers with unskilled or semi-skilled workers was particularly evident in the metalworking industry. The workers’ interest in protecting the position and wage conditions of skilled workers was a driving force behind the first nationwide collective agreements in Norway. The first agreement was made within the metal manufacturing industry in 1907 (“Jernavtalen”). These agreements established minimum wages according to skills and made it less profitable for employers to rely on unskilled workers instead of investing in skills and training (Andersen, 1984). Furthermore, the agreements established the mutual recognition of the organized parties (Løken & Stokke, 2009). The traditional crafts had relied on skills that could be developed in the workplace through close observation and imitation of the master’s work. Most of the work was performed manually, and the firms were typically small, with only one or a few apprentices. Manufacturing firms were usually larger, work was more mechanized and there could be a large number of apprentices. Some of the skills needed by industry workers could be developed more effectively in schools, separate from the production process in the workplace. From the early 1900s a number of vocational schools was established, where young people were trained before entering into apprenticeship training in the workplace. The state initially played no active role in the establishment or development of these schools. Employers, especially within the metalworking industry, were the main driving forces, and the Association for Crafts and Industry was a key player in the development of the vocational school system. Traditionally, the handicraft masters had defended their autonomy from the government in matters concerning apprenticeship training. Within the new alliance between crafts and industry, this strategy gradually changed. The employers argued that when part of the training took place in schools and provided the students with vocational skills that would be useful to many employers, the state should contribute financially. At the same time, employers wanted to have control over the training content (Bjørndal, 2005). This ambivalence towards state involvement among the employers has been characteristic in the development of VET. Several training schools for crafts and industry were established in Kristiania in the early 1900s, mainly initiated by employers and their organizations. The vocational training school for metal workers was established in 1910 and formed the pattern for a number of other schools. The training school for metal workers was established 206 Cooperation and Reform in Vocational Education and Training

with financial support from the state, the municipality and a number of private metalworking companies, such as Aker Mechanical Workshop, Myrens Workshop and Thunes Mechanical Workshop. The purpose of the school was to provide young men with a basic knowledge of tools, materials and methods and with some basic vocational skills before entering apprenticeship training in a workshop (Andersen, 1984). Until World War II the development of vocational education and training in Norway was to a large extent driven from “below” on the basis of initiatives from individual employers and organizations out of the perceived need for skills within crafts and later from manufacturing. A multitude of different training programmes and vocational schools were established without an overall plan or systematic policy. As we have seen, workshop schools or vocational schools providing initial vocational training were established at the beginning of the 1900s. However, the development of the school system was slow, and few schools were established outside the city of Oslo. Apprenticeship training and informal training in the workplace still constituted the core in the development of skilled workers in crafts and manufacturing.

11.1.2 The Post-War Period: The State Takes a More Active Role

While vocational education and training had previously been characterized by great diversity and weak state regulation, the post-war period was marked by institutional development and attempts to standardize vocational training. Gradually, a corporatist training system developed within crafts and industry. The social democratic government elected in 1935 had an ambition to develop a more modern and better organized system for vocational education and training. The field of VET became increasingly politicized and related to social and economic issues. The School for Trades and Industry Act was passed in 1940 and came into force in 1945, after the war. According to the new law, vocational schools should be developed into a nationwide system. At this time, the view that school-based vocational education should precede apprenticeship training had become more influential, but was still not the dominant view among employers (Skule, Stuart & Nyen, 2002). The Apprenticeship Act was introduced in 1952 and regulated many aspects of apprenticeship training. Employers that would train apprentices in trades covered by the law were required to sign apprenticeship contracts and to take on clear commitments in terms of training. In places where an apprentice school had been established, the apprentice should attend these schools and the employer should provide the apprentices with time off for school work. Written curricula were developed for training in the trades regulated by the law. An administrative structure, with representatives from the social partners at the national and regional levels, was developed. Within this structure, the social partners were provided with considerable autonomy in the development, implementation, evaluation and control of the Historical Background: A Strong Coalition Between Employers in Crafts and Industry 207

apprenticeship system (Høst, 2008, p. 87). The scope of the law gradually increased. In 1952, the Apprenticeship Act comprised only six trades within traditional crafts. By 1975, the number of trades comprised by the law had increased to 149 (NOU 1976: 10). The Apprenticeship Act was the first major step in an attempt by the Norwegian state authorities to regulate and control vocational training in the workplace. These attempts were met with ambivalence or direct opposition among employers. One of the elements that made it easier to accept the new regulations was the establishment of an alternative route to obtain a trade certificate based on work experience. Adults who have acquired vocational skills through work experience can register for a theoretical and practical trade examination as so-called practice candidates. This institutional arrangement has existed since the regulation of apprenticeship in the 1950s and still plays an important role in the Norwegian VET system. Within some industries, the practice candidate arrangement is still the most important way to formal skills certification. In the 1950s the vocational school system in Norway was further developed and expanded. The intention was that initial training in vocational schools should be followed by apprenticeship training in a firm and the training be completed with a trade or journeyman’s certificate. In practice it turned out to be difficult to obtain a good match between the number of students in school-based vocational training and the number of available apprenticeships. Whereas the vocational school system expanded rapidly in this period, the number of apprenticeships remained at the same level as before (Olsen, Høst & Michelsen, 2008). Another issue that again was being debated was the content of school-based vocational training. The school system that had developed over time was characterized by a great diversity and different educational traditions in areas such as crafts, manufacturing, sales and administration, shipping and health care. The educational authorities gradually saw a need to systematize a school system that was highly fragmented. An important political aim was to offer equal educational opportunities to students regardless of where they lived. A government committee was appointed in 1965 to prepare a new legislative framework for upper secondary education (“Steen- komiteen”). The committee proposed to combine vocational programmes and general academic programmes in a unitary upper secondary school system. According to the committee, the modernization and structural changes of working life would require more theoretical skills and a greater emphasis on general academic subjects in vocational training. An important objective was to ensure a broader and more democratic recruitment to higher education. The Act of Upper Secondary Education was passed in 1974, removing the formal division between general and vocational education at the upper secondary level. Since then, most upper secondary schools in Norway have offered both general and vocational programmes. The Reform of 1974 was confined to the upper secondary school system and did not include apprenticeship training. 208 Cooperation and Reform in Vocational Education and Training

In the 1970s apprenticeship training had a weak position in Norway, with only 2-3000 new apprenticeship contracts signed every year. Some actors, including the youth organization of the Labour Party (AUF), were in favour of abolishing apprenticeship training altogether. The main argument was that the apprenticeship system maintained and reinforced social inequalities. The opponents of apprenticeship training argued for promoting social mobility through general education and access to higher education: privileges that had previously been reserved for the middle class (Mjelde, 2002; Høst & Hovdhaugen, 2013). Nevertheless, the apprenticeship system survived as a recruitment and skills development system outside or regardless of the ongoing integration process in upper secondary education. Collective actors within crafts and manufacturing continued their efforts to maintain a connection between school-based vocational education and the occupational categories in the workplace. The Act of Upper Secondary Education from 1974 established a unitary school system at the upper secondary level, but the vocational programmes and traditions that had developed within the vocational schools continued to exist within the new institutional framework. The result was a very heterogeneous structure with a wide variety of courses of different length and composition (Høst & Hovdhaugen, 2013).

11.1.3 The 1980s: Revitalization of Apprenticeship Training

In the 1980s interest in the apprenticeship system gained new momentum. Legislative measures as well as new cooperative measures between firms contributed to the expansion and renewal of the apprenticeship system as a training model. In 1981 the Apprenticeship Act of 1950 was replaced by the new Act on Vocational Training. A main objective was to strengthen the workplace as a training venue. The new act provided an institutional framework for close cooperation between the government and the social partners, thereby establishing a model of tripartite cooperation in Norwegian VET. The social partners were provided a strong influence on the content of the training in order to ensure that curricula were consistent with the needs of working life, whether the training took place in schools or in workplaces. While the Apprenticeship Act only regulated apprenticeship training in cities and urban areas, the new Act on Vocational Training applied to the entire nation. The legislation was also more extensive in the sense that new sectors and trades were comprised by the law. The new trades included industry trades within chemical processing, food processing and lumber manufacturing (Høst, Gitlesen & Michelsen, 2008, p. 22). The establishment of new trades made it possible to upgrade work from semi-skilled to skilled work, a factor that was clearly in the interests of labour, as it provided for higher wages. In the middle of the 1980s the number of new apprenticeship contracts had increased from 2-3000 per year to around 10 000. The new legislation and institutional framework and the expansion of the legislation to Historical Background: A Strong Coalition Between Employers in Crafts and Industry 209

new trades and new geographical areas were important factors that contributed to the strengthening of the apprenticeship system during this period. Another measure that probably had a positive impact on the number of apprenticeships was an increase in the state grant given to training companies for each apprentice. In addition to the policy measures, a number of new training offices (“opplæringskontor”) were established by employers in order to strengthen cooperation in apprenticeship training. The training offices are collective enterprises that are owned by training companies. The apprenticeship contracts are signed by the training offices. The training offices assist the training companies in their training of apprentices, thereby dividing responsibilities and reducing the training costs of individual firms. They also work actively to recruit new training companies and to find apprenticeship places among the existing members (Bjørndal, 2005; Hagen & Skule, 2007; Kuczera et al., 2008). Even if there was a strong increase in the number of apprenticeship contracts in the 1980s, the number of apprenticeships was still heavily influenced by economic cycles (Høst, Gitlesen & Michelsen, 2008). This became particularly evident towards the end of the 1980s when the economic downturn dramatically altered the situation of the labour market. The development in the youth labour market was an important backdrop for Reform 94 as an extensive reform of upper secondary education and the Norwegian VET system.

11.1.4 Reform 94: Apprenticeship Training an Integral Part of Upper Secondary Education

The youth labour market in Norway was severely affected by the decline in manufacturing in the 1970s and 1980s. In 1992, the number of teenagers employed in manufacturing had been halved since 1980. At the beginning of the 1990s total employment among the youth had declined by nearly 30 per cent since the 1970s (NOU 1994:3). As a consequence of reduced labour market opportunities, an increasing number of youths and young adults applied to upper secondary schools. The counties, who are responsible for upper secondary education in Norway, did not have enough room in the schools, meaning that a large number of applicants had to be turned down. Every year, state funding to the counties was increased so that they could increase their capacity and take in more students, causing the most significant expansion of upper secondary education in Norwegian history. In 1980 there were around 137 000 students in upper secondary education. Ten years later, the number had increased to more than 200 000 students. A low progression rate in vocational programmes reinforced the capacity problems in upper secondary schools. Many students left school without formal qualifications or they moved horizontally from one basic course to another without moving on in the system. The school structure, with a high degree of vocational specialization starting 210 Cooperation and Reform in Vocational Education and Training

from the first year, was considered a main problem by the education authorities. A political goal for the social democratic government was to grant all youth a statutory right to upper secondary education. In 1989, a committee was appointed (the Blegen Committee), which included representatives from LO and NHO, to prepare a report on how this political goal could be achieved (NOU 1991:4). The work of the committee stimulated discussions between the social partners about how to secure the provision of skilled labour and of vocational training in the future. These discussions resulted in the document “Joint Declaration on vocational education and training in schools and workplaces”, signed by The Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (LO) and the Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise (NHO). The document has been described as a cornerstone in the development of the reform (Bjørndal, 2005). The agreement between LO and NHO in the joint declaration assumed that the basic theoretical training should take place in upper secondary schools. The basic courses in vocational programmes were to provide a broad basis for further training with an increased emphasis on general subjects such as Norwegian, English and mathematics. The idea was that a broader basic education would give vocational students a better foundation for lifelong learning and skills in line with future needs within the trades. Vocational specialization and practical training in the trade should primarily be the responsibility of the workplaces in the second phase of the training programme. The social partners should work to increase the number of apprenticeship places so that all youth who applied to a vocational programme would be given the opportunity to complete their education. The main features of Reform 94 were based on the report from the Blegen Committee and the Joint Declaration of the social partners. The so-called 2+2 model (two years of school-based education followed by two years of apprenticeship training) was established as the main model for all vocational education and training. Through Reform 94, the apprenticeship system was formally integrated as a part of upper secondary education, and vocational education and training became the shared responsibility of the state and the social partners. The content of vocational education and training and the balance between breadth and depth have changed over time. Changes in the content and composition of vocational programmes could be related to changes in the institutional foundation of VET and in the changing roles and responsibilities of the state and the social partners (Nyen & Tønder, 2013). The establishment of the 2+2 model as the standard model can be seen as a compromise solution, seeking to balance the need for general education and breadth in vocational programmes with the need for vocational specialization and practical training in the workplace. Furthermore, the standardization of the dual model established a clear institutional division between schools and workplaces in the first and second part of the training programme, respectively. Historical Background: A Strong Coalition Between Employers in Crafts and Industry 211

11.1.5 Reform 06: Broader Courses with Opportunities for Specialization

In 2006 a new reform, named the “Knowledge Promotion Reform” was introduced. With this reform, new changes in the structure were implemented with fewer and broader vocational courses in the first and second year of vocational education and training. Still, the 2+2 model was retained as the main model in vocational training. The white paper “Culture for Learning” emphasized that the new programme structure was introduced in order to reduce problems associated with low progression in upper secondary education and to facilitate recruitment to small trades and occupations. Furthermore, it was argued that broader courses would ensure that students could make their educational choices regardless of geography and financial status. For students who were still undecided on their choice of education, broader “entrances” to vocational programmes would make it easier to postpone the choice of education, thereby reducing the risk of wrong choices and delays in education. At the same time, it was emphasized that students who had decided on a specific career before entering secondary education should still have the opportunity to practice their preferred occupation at an early stage in their training. The white paper also introduced the concept of the “In depth Study project” (PTF). The introduction of PTF is specifically related to the need for vocational specialization. It is argued that students who are interested in particular occupations should have an opportunity to get in contact with and practice these occupations at an early stage in their training. If a school cannot offer the specialization wanted by a student, the student should be given the opportunity to receive parts of their training in a workplace or at another school. A central assumption is that the opportunity to be introduced to a specific occupation at an early stage will increase student motivation and learning. However, the structural changes and the introduction of PTF in the reform are not only justified in terms of student needs. The white paper also argued that the combination of broader programmes and opportunities for vocational specialization is necessary in order to accommodate skills needs in different parts of the labour market (Nyen & Tønder, 2013).

11.1.6 Recent Developments

Companies and employer organizations in some parts of the labour market have expressed strong concerns that trade-specific competence is not sufficiently developed within the current structure. This leaves companies with a de facto greater responsibility in developing vocational skills within the two years of apprenticeship training. There are clear signs of discontent with the competence level of new apprentices after the introduction of Reform 94 and Reform 06 in traditional apprenticeship trades, like the construction industry. 212 Cooperation and Reform in Vocational Education and Training

In 2012, The Federation of Norwegian Construction Industries, Byggenæringens landsforening, or BNL, proposed changes in the training model as well as in the decision-making rules for the national vocational training council within their sector. BNL argued for an “alternating model”, a model with more frequent changes between learning at school and learning in the workplace, allowing for earlier trade specialization. In BNL’s view, such a model would strike a better balance between broad and trade-specific competence. BNL also called for decision-making rules giving the employer and employee organizations a more decisive influence on the vocational training system. Some schools have been practicing 1+3 models (one year in school, three years of apprenticeship). Others are currently testing the alternating model suggested by BNL. In other words, there are signs of institutional change in terms of layering – new practices are tried out along with the established 2+2 model. In other parts of the labour market, there has been less discontent with the outcomes of the Knowledge Promotion Reform. For instance in health and care services and kindergartens, municipal employers were generally pleased with the new health worker trade as well as the childcare and youth work trade (Nyen, Reegård & Tønder, 2011). However, these trades face a number of other challenges, not least a growing number of students leaving the VET programme after the second year, bridging across to the general programme in order to qualify for higher education (Skålholt, Høst, Nyen & Tønder, 2013). Formally, the 2+2 model is still the main model within these trades. In practice, however, there are strong tendencies towards academic drift, gradually undermining the role of VET in the service sector. In March 2013, a new government white paper, St.meld. 20 (2012-2013) På rett vei (“On the right track”), was presented to Parliament. The paper signalled changes allowing for greater variation in vocational programmes in order to meet diverse needs in different parts of the labour market. The white paper also encouraged stronger emphasis on trade specific competence in the VET programmes and called for an evaluation of the various VET trades by the labour market parties and national education authorities. Other measures include the introduction of a statutory right for vocational students to an extra year at school after they have obtained a trade certificate in order to gain entry qualifications for higher education. The measures signalled in the white paper introduce more flexibility and allow greater heterogeneity between the education programmes and trades at the national level. It encourages new discussions and negotiations between the state and the social partners at the national level about the content, structure and role of VET in each sector and industry. An institutional infrastructure for such negotiations has already been established within the national trade councils but may be given more impetus. To some extent, there is a process of layering going on, as new models like the alternating model or the vekslingsmodell are allowed without replacing or altering the basic structure of subjects and the main model of 2+2. More importantly, the white paper allows for greater adaptation of competence and training models to the needs expressed by the employers’ organizations. Historical Background: A Strong Coalition Between Employers in Crafts and Industry 213

11.1.7 Institutional Changes

Our aim in this chapter has been to identify the main factors driving the development of the vocational education and training in Norway over the last century. We have emphasized the implementation of Reform 94, with the establishment of the dual model as a standard model of training in all vocational programmes in upper secondary education. Before this quite substantial reform, Norwegian VET could be described as a corporatist model, where the social partners had considerable autonomy in the development and implementation of the system. The main actors among the social partners in the preparation of the reform were LO and NHO, continuing a collaboration that had developed over a century. The position of the trade unions and the cooperation between employers’ organizations and trade unions in Norway was an important factor in the development of vocational education and training. The distinction between skilled and unskilled workers has been a key element in collective agreements in Norway since the first nationwide collective agreement was signed within the metalworking industry in 1907. These agreements had a major impact on the development of a cooperative system of industrial relations in Norway, including the regulation of skills and training (Løken & Stokke, 2009). Employers in the machine and metalworking industry were important actors in the establishment of a vocational school system separate from production. Around the school issues, the interests of crafts and manufacturing were partly divergent. The demand for separate schools was mainly in the interest of the employers in manufacturing. Within the crafts, the preferred model was to develop theoretical as well as practical skills in the workplace, closely integrated with the actual production process. The handicraft masters preferred to have autonomy from the state and to keep close control over the training process and the development of their own trade. This divergence in interests combined with the close coalition between crafts and manufacturing has been resolved through negotiations, conflict and compromise throughout the history of VET. The tripartite cooperation between the state and the social partners is another essential factor when trying to understand the development of the Norwegian VET system in general and the institutionalization of a dual model through Reform 94 in particular. Before the 1950s state involvement in vocational education and training was weak. Apprenticeship training in traditional crafts was to some extent regulated in handicraft legislation. Industry trades were not regulated by legislation, but wage provisions for apprentices and skilled workers were regulated by collective agreements. To the extent that the typologies of different training regimes are applicable to this period, we would say that vocational education and training in crafts and industries could be characterized as somewhere between a corporatist regime and a market- based regime. Changes within the system before the 1950s were small and gradual. 214 Cooperation and Reform in Vocational Education and Training

The Apprenticeship Act was the first major step in an attempt by the state authorities to regulate apprenticeship training across industries. The regulation introduced elements from a state-based model, but the social partners were still granted a high level of autonomy in the administration and control of the apprenticeship system. In addition, the establishment of the experience-based trade certificate scheme alongside the apprenticeship system meant that it was possible to bypass the apprenticeship training regulations and train skilled workers through informal learning in the workplace. The existence of two alternative routes to the trade certificate can be seen as an example of layering in the sense that old practices could continue alongside new legislation (Mahoney & Thelen, 2010). The replacement of the Apprenticeship Act by the new Act on Vocational Education and Training in 1980 strengthened the corporative elements of the Norwegian model and institutionalized tripartite cooperation in vocational education and training at the national and regional levels. In a comparative perspective, the delegation of responsibilities and power to the social partners within a tripartite framework was quite remarkable (Olofsson, 2010, p. 223). The revision of the Apprenticeship legislation was partly initiated by the social partners. The new legislation was made applicable to the whole country and included a number of new trades. In this sense, the changes could be seen as an expansion and a strengthening of an existing model more than as a replacement of an old model with a new one. Reform 94 is the most distinct institutional change process in the history of Norwegian VET so far. The reform integrated apprenticeships and school-based vocational education into a unified standard model for upper secondary vocational education. The social democratic government was under heavy pressure with record high youth unemployment coupled with capacity problems in upper secondary schools. The fragmented structure in vocational programmes contributed to the problem with low progression among vocational students. The challenge was to find a way to offer all youth a statutory right to upper secondary education. The apprenticeship system offered a solution to the problem, and the 2+2 model became the standard model for all vocational programmes, including industries outside crafts and industry, like health care and the private service sector. The longstanding alliance between crafts and manufacturing was instrumental in obtaining employer support for the reform. Employers in both crafts and manufacturing were organized within the confederation of Norwegian enterprises, NHO, which allowed for intra-organizational bargaining with a degree of mutual trust. Although Reform 94 served the interests of manufacturing more than crafts, all parties had a common interest in designing a system that attracted youths to VET and to industries that recruited through VET. Opting out of the VET system was not a viable solution for crafts, which historically has been the core segment for VET and apprenticeships. The balance between breadth and depth and the timing of specialization are issues that have always been and that still are debated. It could be argued that the traditional crafts were the main losers in Reform 94 and Reform 06, with the introduction of Historical Background: A Strong Coalition Between Employers in Crafts and Industry 215

more general academic subjects, broader vocational programmes and less vocational specialization. The tensions and unresolved conflicts from earlier compromises have become more manifest in recent years as employers’ organizations within traditional crafts have expressed their discontent and demanded changes in the content and composition of vocational training and education. The liberalization of labour markets has provided these employers with alternative options for recruitment and training, thereby increasing their veto power. The classic dilemma to be resolved is that recruitment strategies that are profitable for the individual employer in a short- term perspective may lead to an erosion of skills and outcomes that are unfavourable to everyone in the long run. In order to deal with these dilemmas, new solutions will constantly have to be developed between employers, labour and the state. The history of Norwegian VET has not been a linear process. At certain stages developments could have taken a different turn. The coalition of manufacturing and crafts helped to establish a dual VET model for training and recruitment within these sectors, where apprenticeships were gradually combined with school-based education through the first half of the 20th century. Unlike in Sweden, apprenticeships and the dual model survived the increased state involvement and broadening of general education in the 1950s and 1960s. In Sweden a lack of cooperation between companies and between labour and employers, combined with a negative position of organized labour to apprenticeships, led the labour market parties to leave initial VET to the state (Olofsson, 2005). In Norway, apprenticeships survived among other things because organized labour accepted wage differentials between skilled and unskilled labour and because of a degree of cooperation and trust between employers. Still, the number of apprenticeships was low in the 1960s and 1970s. The resurgence of the dual VET model through Reform 94 demonstrated the capacity of the tripartite system to reform and change VET policies. It remains to be seen whether the tripartite deliberative system will be able to deal with the current challenges to VET, not least because solutions must be found across various policy fields. However, recent history shows that there has been a mutual trust and willingness among the labour market parties and government to find solutions to these challenges. 216 References

References

Andersen, E. (1984). Norsk yrkesopplæring 1890-1940. Hovedoppgave. Oslo: Statens yrkespeda- gogiske høyskole. Bjørndal (2005). Videregående opplæring i Norge i 800 år – med hovedvekt på tiden etter 1950. Halden: Forum Bok. Busemeyer, M. R., & Trampusch, C. (2012). Introduction. The comparative political economy of collective skill formation. In M. R. Busemeyer & C. Trampusch (Eds.), The political economy of collective skill formation (pp. 3-40). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fuglum, P. (1978). Norge i støpeskjeen 1884-1920. Norges historie, volume 12. Oslo: Cappelen. Greinert, W.-D. (2004). European vocational training systems: The theoretical context of historical development. In Cedefop, Towards a history of vocational education and training (VET) in Europe in a comparative perspective (pp. 17-27). Luxembourg: Cedefop Panorama series 103. Hagen, A., & Skule, S. (2007). Den norske modellen og utviklingen av kunnskapssamfunnet. I J.E. Dølvik et al. (Eds.), Hamskifte. Den norske modellen i endring (pp. 145-168). Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk. Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. (2011). An introduction to varieties of capitalism. In P. A. Hall & D. Soskice (Eds.), Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage (pp. 1-68). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Høst, H. (2008). Governance and cooperation. In H. Høst (Ed.), Continuity and change in Norwegian vocational education and training (VET) (pp. 87-94). NIFU STEP Rapport 29/2008. Oslo: NIFU ST EP. Høst, H., Gitlesen, J. P., & Michelsen, S. (2008). Læreplasser mellom politikk og konjunkturer. In H. Høst (Ed.), Fag- og yrkesopplæringen i Norge – noen sentrale utviklingstrekk (pp. 17-28). NIFU STEP Rapport 20/2008. Oslo: NIFU STEP. Høst, H., & Hovdhaugen, E. (2013). Ny struktur – tradisjonelle mønstre. Kunnskapsløftets endringer i et historisk perspektiv. In B. Karseth, J. Møller & P. Aasen (Eds.), Reformtakter. Om fornyelse og stabilitet i grunnopplæringen (pp. 61-82). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Kuczera, M., Brunello, G., Field, S., & Hoffmann, N. (2008). Learning for jobs. OECD reviews of vocational education and training. Norway. Paris: OECD. Kvikstad, J. (1998). Arbeidsliv og fagopplæring før 1900. MA thesis, history. Trondheim: Norges teknisk-naturvitenskapelige universitet. Løken, E., & Stokke, T. A. (2009). Labour relations in Norway. Fafo-report 2009:33. Oslo: Fafo. Mahoney, J., & Thelen, K. (2010). A theory of gradual institutional change. In J. Mahoney & K. Thelen (Eds.), Explaining institutional change. Ambiguity, agency, and power (pp. 1-37). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mjelde, L. (2002). Yrkenes pedagogikk, fra arbeid til læring – fra læring til arbeid. Oslo: Yrkeslit- teratur. NOU 1976: 10. Framtidig yrkesutdanning. Samarbeid mellom skole og arbeidsliv. Oslo: Norges Offentlige Utredninger. NOU 1991: 4. Veien videre til studie- og yrkeskompetanse for alle. Oslo: Norges Offentlige Utredninger. NOU 1994: 3. Ungdom, lønn og arbeidsledighet. Oslo: Norges Offentlige Utredninger. Nyen, T., Reegård, K., & Tønder, A. H. (2011). Har vi lærefag som er relevante for kommunesektoren? Fafo-rapport 2011:36. Oslo: Fafo. Nyen, T., & Tønder, A. H. (2013). Prosjekt til fordypning – et taktskifte i fagopplæringen. In B. Karseth, J. Møller, & P. Aasen (Eds.), Reformtakter. Om fornyelse og stabilitet i grunnopp- læringen (pp. 83-98). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. References 217

Olofsson, J. (2005). Svensk yrkesutbildning. Vägval i internationell belysning. Stockholm: SNS Förlag. Olofsson, J. (2010). Nordiska erfarenheter av lärlingsutbildning. In SOU 2010: 19, Lärling – en bro mellan skola och arbetsliv. Bilaga 1 (pp. 193-227). Stockholm: Sveriges Offentlige Utredningar (SOU). Olsen, O. J. (2008). Institusjonelle endringsprosesser i norsk- fag- og yrkesutdanning. Fornyelse eller gradvis omdannnelse? Notat 5-2008. Bergen: Rokkansenteret. Olsen, O. J., Høst, H., & Michelsen, S. (2008). Veier fra yrkesopplæring til arbeidsliv. En studie av det norske overgangsregimets effektivitet. I J. Olofsson & A. Panican (Eds.), Ungdomars väg från skola till arbetsliv. Nordiska erfarenheter (pp. 249-332). TemaNord 2008:584. Copenhagen: Nordisk Ministerråd. Skule, S., Stuart, M., & Nyen, T. (2002). Training and development in Norway. International Journal of Training and Development, 6(4), 263-276. Skålholt, A., Høst, H., Nyen, T., & Tønder, A. H. (2013). Å bli helsefagarbeider. En kvalitativ undersøkelse av overganger mellom skole og læretid, og mellom læretid og arbeidsliv i helsear- beiderfaget. NIFU STEP Rapport 5/2013. Fafo-rapport 2013:05. Oslo: NIFU STEP & Oslo: Fafo. Thelen, K. (2004). How institutions evolve. The political economy of skills in Germany, Britain, the United States and Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Thelen, K. (2010). Beyond comparative statics: Historical institutional approaches to stability and change in the political economy of labor. In G. Morgan, J. L. Campbell, C. Crouch, O. K. Pedersen & R. Whitley (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of comparative institutional analysis (pp. 42-61). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Thelen, K. (2014). Varieties of liberalization and the new politics of social solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.