Considering that the phenomena of university-industry cooperation has become the trend sine qua non at leading global universities and in the higher education policies of developed countries in the 21st century, including the EU policy discourse, room for further development in this field exists in the improvement of its qualitative dimension. For that reason, this dissertation empirically investigates instruments and policy design in the economically most competitive EU countries, Finland and Germany, that have qualitatively improved cooperation between the universities chosen for this study and their industrial partners. The cases analysed in this study are: Aalto University in Finland and Technological University Dresden in Germany, that were chosen according to the Most Different Systems Design, whereby both cases differ from an average European university profile. The research focus of the above cases is the analysis of reform processes observed in the formulation stage at the university level around 2010. These processes have been analysed with regards to the influence of changes in higher education policy design and observed in the narrower socio-economic context and in the wider context of the Europeanization of public policies and of the concept of knowledge-based economy. Thus, a major part of the analysis refers to investigating the instruments for qualitative development of university-industry cooperation that are divided into four groups: nodal instruments, instruments concerning public authorities, financial instruments and organisational instruments. In this study, historical institutionalism, i.e. the path dependence concept, has been used in order to investigate the direction of the evolution of universities in the most competitive EU countries and to re-examine the conventional theoretical understanding of the institution of universities in these specific cases. A recommendation for countries willing to enhance their own university-industry cooperation has also been given based on the research results. Based on the research questions of this dissertation, the following conclusions have been made: Research question no. 1: Which groups of actors were dominant in the policy network formed for the university reform (institutional changes) and the university-industry cooperation and what were the interests and motives of the policy actors for initiating the reform and participating in the university-industry cooperation? The research has shown that in both of the analysed cases the state actors' initiative was the main trigger for starting the changes, but it has also shown that the credit for the preparation of the concrete reform measures and instruments as well as their successful implementation belongs to university actors. Thereby, both groups of actors in both countries had a common goal: to improve university performance, particularly by enhancing its R&D excellence, and to make a contribution to the development of the society and economy. Research question no. 2: What were the socio-economic and institutional barriers in the process of university reform (changes), how were they overcome and what were the methods for solving conflicts of interest in stakeholders’ relations during the reform? Based on the research results, open and high-quality communication between all the relevant stakeholders was key to solving issues successfully during the preparation of measures and instruments for institutional changes. In both cases the necessity for all of the stakeholders to be well-informed about the “rules of the game” was also recorded. Research question no. 3: What is the scope of relevance of using different kinds of nodal instruments and why were the specific instruments relevant for R&D and industrial cooperation chosen at the analysed universities? At the analysed universities, quantitative and especially qualitative progress in the implementation of nodal instruments aiming at the improvement of R&D and industrial relations has been observed, especially including students’ involvement in research and entrepreneurial activities (particularly at Aalto University). Thereby, research and businessrelated teaching methods gain relevance especially owing to the fact that in both cases university participants recognized the importance of training for young people in the field of R&D and entrepreneurship even within the mainstream education system. Research question no. 4: Are government measures or the university’s capacity for reform more important for the choice and formulation of instruments aimed at the improvement of R&D and university-industry cooperation? Based on the research, state actors were of major importance for initiating and (financially) supporting the changes at both universities. On the other hand, university actors were more significant for the formulation of particular instruments and for the successful implementation of institutional changes. Research question no. 5: In which ways do Europeanization and internationalization provide alternative sources of R&D funding for universities and do they facilitate the process of overcoming the local socio-economic deficiencies? Based on the research, the effects of Europeanization concerning the utilization of EU funds has a considerable and increasing share in R&D funding at the analysed universities, but this is not a pivotal factor regarding the influence on quality of R&D performance at these universities. At the same time, the process of internationalization is substantial with regard to the choice of financial instruments at the analysed universities modelled on international policy templates and examples of good practices. Research question no. 6: Which institutional (organisational) changes at the examined universities are relevant, how were they chosen, i.e. in which scope are they compliant with the historical continuity of the analysed institutions? The research showed that both universities, during institutional changes around 2010, implemented major changes in the following areas: 1) in the field of internal organisation of the university with the goal of enhancing the possibilities for the implementation of interdisciplinary research; 2) in the field of establishing additional sources of R&D funding; and 3) regarding setting up a new recruitment and career-development system for faculty members. The main difference between the analysed universities, explainable in terms of the path dependence concept, is that at Aalto University extreme changes were implemented in the structure of university governance and that students became the main promoters of entrepreneurial activities at the university. In contrast, changes at TU Dresden were less extreme and had a particular emphasis on the enhancement of R&D cooperation with nonuniversity research institutes in Dresden. Research question no. 7: In which direction have the chosen universities from the most competitive EU countries been developing concerning the implementation of instruments for the qualitative improvement of R&D? Based on the research, universities from the most competitive EU countries develop in a direction that leads to an increase of autonomy and financial independence not only towards the state, but also towards their industrial partners, whereby both processes enable the qualitative improvement of R&D at the institutions concerned. Research question no. 8: Which main types of instruments aimed at influencing the enhancement of R&D are common to the analysed institutions? Based on the comprehensive analysis, in both of the analysed cases the following main instruments aimed at enhancing R&D performance are used: more efficient learning and teaching methods oriented towards practical training for students in the field of scientific research and entrepreneurship, greater autonomy in the sphere of university governance, additional sources of R&D funding that are freely available to university actors, and new specialised models of cooperation with external actors. Concerning the given theoretical and methodological framework, the conclusion of this study is that the contemporary development of European universities, including those operating very closely to market logic, can still be well understood by applying the path dependence concept that, inter alia, enables the understanding of the causes for different reactions of different institutions affected by the internationalization processes. Finally, it would be useful to supplement the knowledge developed and elaborated in this dissertation in further research with, for example, evaluative comparative analyses of single groups of policy instruments for the qualitative development of university-industry cooperation on a larger sample of successful universities. This would give insight into which sub-types of instruments are most represented and most effective in the area concerned and thus give the precise policy recommendations for state and university actors interested in the improvement of innovation and higher education policy.