*5.1. Findings*

Our first research question was: How have education finance, economic development, and educational systems influenced tertiary short-cycle vocational education after controlling for population characteristics? The review of policy literature demonstrates the commitment of national governments to invest in VET education, a pattern evident in both the EU and ASEAN nations. The EU guides economic, educational, and social policies that promote national development.

All except one of the developed nations providing World Bank data were European. New Zealand, the additional case, had followed a British developmental pattern and was thus influenced by the UK system and traditions, as was Ireland (included as a case). In the early 1980s, nations in the British Commonwealth began transforming technical programs into more advanced collegiate programs. The ASEAN countries in Southeast Asia, including some Islamic countries, engaged in this process with the support of the Colombo Plan Staff College. These initiatives supported autonomous development, moving through the post-colonial stage, and collective inter-governmental efforts promoting the indigenous social and economic development of member countries in Asia and the Pacific region.

Some less-developed European nations providing data had been in the Soviet bloc. Post-Soviet countries were slower to create competitive postsecondary systems because of central control, the factory-like approach, and corrupt admissions, with wealthy families buying access [101,102]. In contrast, the former Soviet countries in the EU passed through the development barrier and have obtained higher GDP per capita. Of course, selection into the EU is vital because the EU's economy, workforce, education, and social openness provide more avenues for development.

The longitudinal trend analysis revealed changing patterns of trade and manufacturing after 2012 in less-developed countries, with an upward trajectory for enrollment in shortcycle courses before 2007. There were also changes in manufacturing patterns, with lessdeveloped countries producing less manufacturing output and the developed nations increasing their manufacturing after 2012. However, changes in the supply chain were not the only factor.

The less-developed nations started spending more on tertiary education after 2014, as the European countries had throughout the period studied. The regression analysis demonstrates that tertiary spending as a share of all government spending on education bears a statistically significant and positive relationship with short-cycle tertiary enrollment. The impact of population size on enrollment in short-cycle programs ceased to be statistically significant in the second step of the fixed-effects analysis. We expect these findings would be different had China and India provided data. However, the question is beyond the parameters of our study. Thus, the European and less-developed nations in this study shifted VET programs from short-cycle to bachelor's level programs, a pattern of educational development that differs substantially from the US. The Biden administration's investment in building infrastructure, computer chips, and the environment could influence demand

for technical and vocational programs. The movement toward bachelor's programs in US community colleges [103] could also result in a meaningful and substantial change.

The second research question was: Do the influences of education finance, economic development, and educational systems on short-cycle tertiary education (primarily vocational and technical programs) differ between developed and less-developed countries? The best indicator of putting policy into practice is public investment. Among the nations providing World Bank data, we found that public spending on tertiary education was a key indicator of participation in VET education.

Collaboration within regional trade and education also appears to be a crucial factor in this period of global trade. Commonwealth nations engaged in innovation during economic globalization in the 1980s, especially in Southeast Asia. The evolution of the EU as an organizing entity fostering within-region trade and educational exchange seems to have accelerated economic development and supported economic equity better than in the USA. The UK becomes an exceptional case within this pattern. It pioneered upgrading technical education, influencing educational growth in Southeast Asia, Australia, and New Zealand. Still, Brexit symbolizes a go-it-alone strategy that differs substantially from the productive pattern of regional cooperation in education and trade evident in EU and ASEAN nations. It remains to be seen whether the UK's recent development of a trade agreement with the EU will change Brexit's apparent negative economic consequences.

#### *5.2. Implications*

These analyses have implications for economic and educational development across nations, particularly those countries included in the dataset. While neoliberal policy dominated the international trajectory in education and economic development early in the twenty-first century, national economies have entered a period of uncertainty and deep conflict about future directions. Underlying the new uncertainty lurk tensions between the development of democratic institutions promoting equity and support for uplift across generations, including short-cycle technical and vocational education preparing workers for new industries in a global economy.

The challenges created by the decline of democratic institutions are now evident in many nations. Many less-developed countries have not overcome totalitarian governments. Some Latin American nations suffer from elected leaders using demagogic tactics to maintain power [104]. Further, the development of universities in post-Soviet countries is hampered by the legacy of central control in government and universities [102]. The EU strategy supports the capacity of rising generations to learn, work, and engage in economic development. The current period of uncertainty affects citizens, students, administrators, and policymakers seeking a better financial future with stable social structures.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, L.Y.; methodology, L.Y. and E.P.S.J.; software, L.Y.; validation, L.Y.; formal analysis, L.Y. and E.P.S.J.; investigation, L.Y. and E.P.S.J.; resources, L.Y. and E.P.S.J.; data curation, L.Y.; writing—original draft preparation, L.Y. and E.P.S.J.; writing—review and editing, L.Y. and E.P.S.J.; visualization, L.Y.; supervision, L.Y. and E.P.S.J.; project administration, L.Y. and E.P.S.J.; funding acquisition, E.P.S.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This Special Issue Was Funded by the International Joint Research Project "Education Development and Social Justice", Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Not applicable.

**Informed Consent Statement:** Not applicable.

**Data Availability Statement:** This study draws data from the World Development Indicators (WDI) published by the World Bank. The data are publicly available online: https://databank.worldbank. org/source/world-development-indicators (accessed on 24 May 2023).

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.
