During the last two decades of the twentieth century, for-profit higher education in the United States grew at an extraordinary pace. By the close of the century, for-profit institutions accounted for a substantial proportion of degree-seeking students in the United States--an enrollment share that, until relatively recently, expanded at exponential rates. State governments are arguably in the strongest position to enact effective oversight of the for-profit institutions operating within their borders. Yet we know surprisingly little about how changes in state policy affect these institutions, or whether such changes have any influence at all. This study employs a qualitative methodology to consider possible relationships between state policy and degree-granting for-profit institutions. Using two purposefully selected case study states that vary significantly in prevalence and performance of for-profit institutions, the study explores how higher education stakeholders in these states interpret the relationship between state policies and for-profit higher education. The study also examines how the rules-in-use framework, itself developed out of the Institutional Analysis and Design framework created by Elinor Ostrom, can be used to examine the relationship between state policies and for-profit higher education. The findings suggest that key state-level rules may influence the prevalence and performance of 4-year for-profit institutions, while findings for 2-year institutions are less conclusive. Rules that may have an effect include the inclusion of for-profit institutions in state planning; the stabilizing or destabilizing influence of state coordinating bodies; whether the state has structured a competitive or coordinative market; the level of development of the nonprofit private sector; the capacity of the public sector to meet demand; the politicization of the higher education system; and whether cultural beliefs and attitudes dispose actors in the system to work with or against counterparts in the for-profit sector. Taken together, these rules appear to suggest that what may ultimately matter most is how states alter the relative balance of power between the market, the state and academic institutions. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://bibliotheek.ehb.be:2222/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]