| OCR Text |
Show 56 considered by my strategic interaction model to provide the context or backdrop in which the strategies of parties play out. My model, therefore, still considers them valuable components, but alone unable to account for the variation in electoral success experienced by niche parties in Europe. Variable Cluster #3-Strategy Of the three existing explanations and variable clusters, this one is the most undeveloped for two reasons. First of all, researchers, especially in looking at niche parties, have primarily focused on socioeconomic and institutional explanations (Bolleyer 2013; Meguid 2008, 6-13; Müller-Rommel 2002, 9-10). As Meguid asserts, "By focusing on electoral rules, state structure, and the economic health and value orientation of a society, theories of new party electoral strength have prioritized the structure of the competitive arena over the behavior of the actors within it" (2005, 357). It is clear, however, that there is considerable explanatory potential in recognizing parties as actors who can shape and be shaped by their own decisions, other parties, and the system. Moreover, since there are multiple choices and strategies available to parties, there is also more variation, unlike the institutional factors, which could, in turn, help explain the success and impact of niche parties (Müller-Rommel 2002, 9-10). Secondly, in the existing literature, even when strategy is included, the state of niche parties is often fixed rather than treating them as strategic political actors in their own right. For example, Meguid (2005 and 2008), who pioneered the importance of mainstream party decisions with respect to niche party success, and even newer research from Pardos-Pardo (2015), do not equally consider the strategies available to all parties, |
