In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

CHAPTER 3 A Theoretical Model There is a degree ofconsensus among students ofnew political parties that the presence of a neglected demand or a new issue is not on its own a sufficient reason for the emergence of a new actor on the electoral scene. This appears clearly in one of the tales of the previous chapter. Despite the early formation of an environmental consciousness in the Netherlands, a new party failed to emerge for some time. In the words of Riidig (1990, 8) the "problem push" does not suffice; there also has to be an "opportunitypull" motivating the emergence ofa new party. Hauss and Rayside (1978) claim that the crucial elements which influence this "opportunity pull" are political and institutional factors. As already discussed above, the way that these factors influence the formation of new political parties is not explained in most theoretical frameworks. I argue that they are important for understanding the emergence of new political challengers, given that these political and institutional factors are common to the formation process of all new political parties. These new parties must all overcome or take advantage ofpolitical and institutional "facilitators" (Hauss and Rayside 1978). While several authors have explored the importance ofthese different "facilitators " on the empirical level (e.g., Hauss and Rayside 1978; Rosenstone, Behr, and Lazarus 1984; Harmel and Robertson 1985; Miiller-RommeI1993), they have partially neglected the questions of why the formation process is influenced and how it is influenced. My argument is that these authors, by focusing almost exclusively on new parties, have failed to appreciate the importance ofpreexisting parties. To understand more clearly the emergence of new parties, it is necessary to include established parties when designing the theoretical framework. Several authors have made attempts in this direction (Kitschelt 1988; Miiller-Rommel 1993), but do not place the interaction between established parties and potential new parties in its strategic context. In particular, I will argue that such an inclusion will allow me to explain why the "opportunity pull" is important in the emergence of new parties. Furthermore , it will also enable me to unravel puzzles discussed above, which remain unsolved in the study ofnew political parties. In this chapter, I propose a theoretical model for the study of new par37 38 Altering Party Systems ties. It emphasizes the interaction between established parties and groups that contemplate forming a new party in a given polity. These potential challengers address neglected demands or new issues.I I argue that this interaction contains strategic elements, which are best addressed with the aid of a game-theoretic model. The argument in favor of using a game-theoretic model for studying the emergence of new parties appears in the first section. The second section presents the theoretical model and discusses the assumptions upon which it is based. Several authors writing about party system change and the formation of new political parties implicitly support arguments which reinforce my assumptions . I will, therefore, use these statements to tie my model more closely to the substantive literature in both fields. The third section presents at an intuitive level the outcomes that may result in equilibrium in this model. Analyzing these possible outcomes and their respective likelihood yields several testable implications. I will present these implications in the fourth section and compare them to existing hypotheses in the literature. In the subsequent conclusion , I will summarize my theoretical findings and discuss criticisms that might be leveled against my model. Interdependent Choices and Game-Theoretic Models In the literature on comparative politics, game-theoretic models on the formation of new political parties are rare.2 Consequently, I will first defend my choice ofa game-theoretic model. As briefly mentioned above, I contend that a crucial element in the emergence ofnew parties is the behavior ofthe existing parties. Most authors agree on the importance ofthe way in which established parties in a polity react to a new demand or a new issue. They often assume, however, that this reaction is entirely determined by the internal characteristics of the parties (e.g., Koelble 1992) or by the parties' positions on the electoral scene (e.g., Kitschelt 1988; Muller-Rommel 1993). Koelble (1992) argues, for example, that the British Labour Party reacted differently to challenges than the West German Social Democrats. He explains these differences by the importance of the trade unions in the former party. Muller-Rommel (1993) argues that the composition of the government, at a time when environmental I. Below. I will often use the...

Share