A COMPARATIVE STUDY ON THE GOVERNANCE OF VOCATIONAL EDUCATION BETWEEN CHINA AND GERMANY

This article explores the governance structures of vocational education systems in two countries with fundamentally different political and administrative models—China and Germany. The purpose of the study is to analyze how these systems are shaped by national governance traditions and to identify the institutional characteristics that influence the development of vocational education. The methodological basis of the study includes a comparative approach supported by qualitative research methods. The analysis is structured around three main dimensions: the legal system governing vocational education, the structure of the education system, and the configuration of administrative management. By applying methods of analysis, synthesis, and generalization, the study draws meaningful comparisons between the two country, while identifying patterns and differences that are essential for cross-national learning. The findings of the study reveal that Germany’s vocational education governance is characterized by a decentralized, legally codified structure that grants significant autonomy to regional authorities and industry bodies. The system is underpinned by collaborative arrangements between educational institutions and enterprises, ensuring a strong alignment between training programs and labor market needs. By contrast, China's vocational education system is governed through a centralized administrative model, where policy design and implementation are directed by national-level authorities. Recent reforms have elevated vocational education to a status equal to general education and introduced new mechanisms to encourage school-enterprise collaboration and expand access to higher-level vocational programs. While both countries aim to integrate vocational education into broader development strategies, their methods reflect different priorities and institutional logics. The German model emphasizes systemic continuity and shared governance, whereas the Chinese model highlights strategic planning and centralized policy leadership. These contrasting approaches offer valuable insights into the interplay between education systems and national governance structures.