Privileged interests on the party agenda: Bitcoin-related issues in two countries since 2020

TL;DR

The paper examines how political parties in the UK and the Netherlands have responded to Bitcoin-related issues since 2020, finding that electoral incentives and public opinion influence their attention.

Contribution

The study introduces Bitcoin as a novel case to test how political parties respond to issues favored by privileged groups.

Findings

Parties are less likely to address Bitcoin issues due to weak electoral incentives.

Internal divisions among voters based on age reduce party responsiveness to elite interests.

Bitcoin's support from wealthy, educated males does not translate into party attention without public backing.

Abstract

What explains whether and how much political parties give attention to a policy issue? Parties are expected to cater to the interests of privileged groups and to be dismissive unless an issue offers an electoral opportunity. How to test this? Most issues have been around for so long that it has become difficult to track party responses. Ideally, a multifaceted phenomenon would fall from the sky and become favored by privileged groups, after which we would observe party reactions. Bitcoin fulfills these criteria. It has become significant, suited for various ideologies yet disproportionally supported by wealthy, highly educated male voters. In this paper, we study how new issues emerge around Bitcoin, and how parties respond. Voter attitudes, preferences, expectations, and Bitcoin ownership are taken from our 2020-2023 four-wave British (N=5,121) and Dutch (N=5,002) voter surveys. Party positions on Bitcoin are derived from our surveys of MPs and party representatives, cross-validated by party communication. Using issue yield theory, we find that weak electoral incentives, particularly due to age-related internal divisions, prevent parties from catering to privileged groups on Bitcoin issues. This suggests that a party system will not embrace elite interests, even on low-salience issues, under unfavorable public opinion alignments.

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1057/s41269-024-00380-4.

Figures