Abstract:

By modifying the institutional analysis framework suggested by W. Richard Scott (2010), this paper offers a framework for analyzing the institutional complementarity of apprenticeship, in which the three dimensions of regulative, normative and cultural-cognitive factors interact with each other. England and Germany are selected as cases as they are the typical Anglo-Saxon countries and Rhine countries which have had great success.
In terms of apprentice participation, the German system shows better equilibrium than the English one. Regulative factors in the German system are at medium level, and the system relies more on the strong normative and cultural-cognitive factors. In England, both normative and cultural-cognitive factors are weak, while the regulative factors are strong due to the incentives for apprentices. However, the institutional arrangements in both countries aims at the same direction:providing apprentices with promising future.
In terms of employer's participation, the German system has better equilibrium, with relatively stronger normative and cultural-cognitive factors than regulative factors. The three factors reinforce each other. However, in the English system, strong regulative factors compensate the weak normative and cultural-cognitive factors. Despite great difference, Germany and England share the similarity in institutional arrangements.
In terms of quality assurance, Germany presents an excellent model, in which quality assurance goes along with all the process of apprenticeship training, including providers' accreditation, training standards, training process, evaluation and qualification. The regulative, normative and cultural-cognitive factors are all strong and they reinforce each other. Great efforts have also been made in England, but all the three factors are still not strong enough and need improvement.
To sum up, the results show that:a) matual-reinforcement and compensation are the two basic forms of institutional complementarity for apprenticeship; b) strengthening regulative factors could be an effective approach for government to developing apprenticeship; c) the key point to institutional complementarity for apprentice participation is to provide promising careers for apprentices; d) the institutional complementarity for employer participation lies in reducing the risk of poaching externality; e) institutional complementarity for quality assurance relies on the reinforcement of institutions upon all the process of apprenticeship training; f) complementarity also exists between institutions for quantity improvement and those for quality enhancement.

Key words: modern apprenticeship, institutional complementarity, comparison