How do corruption scandals affect mass support for democratic institutions? We leverage the surprise news of Brazil’s historic 2015 corruption scandal, which broke during Latinobarometer data collection, to assess the causal effects of scandals on political system support. From the corruption literature, we derive and test two hypotheses: (1) a conditional hypothesis in which the public rewards democratic institutions for uncovering corruption and punishes those institutions implicated in the scandal, and (2) a cynical hypothesis in which the public punishes democratic institutions as complicit or failing to prevent corruption. Our regression discontinuity analysis finds support for the cynical hypothesis. Being randomly sampled after the news of the scandal broke leads to a significant reduction in trust in institutions, whether they were involved in the scandal or not, in democratic values, and in support for democracy. We conclude with the implications of these findings for accountability and challenges to democracy.
AggerR. E.GoldsteinM. N.PearlS. A. (1961). Political cynicism: Measurement and meaning. The Journal of Politics, 23(3), 477–506. https://doi.org/10.2307/2127102
2.
AndersonC. J.TverdovaY. V. (2003). Corruption, political allegiances, and attitudes toward government in contemporary democracies. American Journal of Political Science, 47(1), 91–109. https://doi.org/10.2307/3186095
3.
AnduizaE.GallegoA.MuñozJ. (2013). Turning a blind eye: Experimental evidence of partisan bias in attitudes toward corruption. Comparative Political Studies, 46(12), 1664–1692.
4.
AriasE.LarreguyH.MarshallJ.QuerubínP. (2022). Priors Rule: When Do Malfeasance Revelations Help Or Hurt Incumbent Parties?Journal of the European Economic Association, 20(4), 1433–1477. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeea/jvac015
5.
AvisE.FerrazC.FinanF. (2018). Do government audits reduce corruption? Estimating the impacts of exposing corrupt politicians. Journal of Political Economy, 126(5), 1912–1964. https://doi.org/10.1086/699209
6.
BartelsB. L.JohnstonC. D. (2013). On the ideological foundations of Supreme Court legitimacy in the American public. American Journal of Political Science, 57(1), 184–199. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2012.00616.x
7.
BartelsB. L.KramonE. (2020). Does public support for judicial power depend on who is in political power? Testing a theory of partisan alignment in africa. American Political Science Review, 114(1), 144–163. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055419000704
8.
BartelsB.KramonE. (2022). All the President’s Justices? The Impact of Presidential Copartisanship on Supreme Court Job Approval. American Journal of Political Science, 66(1), 171–186. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12617
9.
BoasT. C.HidalgoF. D.MeloM. A. (2019). Norms versus action: Why voters fail to sanction malfeasance in Brazil. American Journal of Political Science, 63(2), 385–400. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12413
10.
BostonJ.KassowB. J.MasoodA. S.MillerD. R. (2023). Your honor’s misdeeds: The consequences of judicial scandal on specific and diffuse support. PS: Political Science & Politics, 56(2), 195–200. https://doi.org/10.1017/s104909652200138x
BraigM.PowerT. J.RennóL. (2015). Brazil 2015 and beyond: The aftermath of the 2014 elections and implications for Dilma’s second term. LASA Forum, XLVI(3), 15–17.
CaldeiraG. A.GibsonJ. L. (1992). The etiology of public support for the Supreme Court. American Journal of Political Science, 36(3), 635–664. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111585
15.
CampelloD.ZuccoC. (2016). Presidential success and the world economy. The Journal of Politics, 78(2), 589–602. https://doi.org/10.1086/684749
16.
CattaneoM. D.IdroboN.TitiunikR. (2020). A practical introduction to regression discontinuity designs: Foundations. Cambridge University Press.
17.
CattaneoM. D.IdroboN.TitiunikR. (2024). A practical introduction to regression discontinuity designs: Extensions. Cambridge University Press.
18.
ChangE. C. C.GoldenM. A.HillS. J. (2010). Legislative malfeasance and political accountability. World Politics, 62(2), 177–220. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0043887110000031
19.
ChongA.De La OA.KarlanD.WantchekonL. (2015). Does corruption information inspire the fight or quash the hope? A field experiment in Mexico on voter turnout, choice, and party identification. The Journal of Politics, 77(1), 55–71. https://doi.org/10.1086/678766
20.
DaltonR. J. (2004). Democratic challenges, democratic choices: The erosion of political support in advanced industrial democracies: Oxford University Press.
21.
DanieleG.AassveA.Le MoglieM. (2022). Never forget the first time: The persistent effects of corruption and the rise of populism in Italy. The Journal of Politics, 85(2), 468–483. https://doi.org/10.1086/723019
De MicheliD.Sanchez-GomezJ. T.RobertsK. M. (2022). Tenuous pacts and multiparty coalitions: The politics of presidential impeachment in Latin America. Journal of Latin American Studies, 54(2), 283–311. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022216x22000219
24.
De MicheliD.TaylorW. K. (2024). Public trust in Latin America’s courts: Do institutions matter?Government and Opposition, 59(1), 146–167. https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2022.6
25.
De MicheliD.TaylorW. K. (2025). Replication data for: Consequences of corruption for political system support: Evidence from a Brazilian scandal. Harvard Dataverse. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/DZR1J2
DunningT. (2012). Natural experiments in the social sciences: A design-based approach: Cambridge University Press.
28.
EastonD. (1965). A systems analysis of political life: University of Michigan Press.
29.
FacklerT.LinT. (1995). Political corruption and presidential elections, 1929-1992. The Journal of Politics, 57(4), 971–993. https://doi.org/10.2307/2960398
30.
Fernández-VázquezP.BarberáP.RiveroG. (2016). Rooting out corruption or rooting for corruption? The heterogeneous electoral consequences of scandals. Political Science Research and Methods, 4(2), 379–397. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2015.8
31.
FerrazC.FinanF. (2008). Exposing corrupt politicians: The effects of Brazil’s publicly released audits on electoral outcomes. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 123(2), 703–745. https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.2008.123.2.703
32.
FismanR.GoldenM. A. (2017). Corruption: What everyone needs to know. Oxford University Press.
33.
GamboaL. (2022). Opposition at the margins. Cambridge University Press.
34.
Gonzalez-OcantosE. A.Muñoz ChirinosP.PavãoN.Baraybar HidalgoV. (2023). Prosecutors, voters and the criminalization of corruption in Latin America: The case of Lava Jato. Cambridge University Press.
35.
HainmuellerJ. (2012). Entropy balancing for causal effects: A multivariate reweighting method to produce balanced samples in observational studies. Political Analysis, 20(1), 25–46. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpr025
36.
HakhverdianA.MayneQ. (2012). Institutional trust, education, and corruption: A micro-macro interactive approach. The Journal of Politics, 74(3), 739–750. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022381612000412
KlašnjaM.TuckerJ. A. (2013). The economy, corruption, and the vote: Evidence from experiments in Sweden and Moldova. Electoral Studies, 32(3), 536–543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2013.05.007
LullJ.HinermanS. (1997). Media scandals: Morality and desire in the popular culture marketplace: Columbia University Press.
43.
ManzettiL.WilsonC. J. (2007). Why do corrupt governments maintain public support?Comparative Political Studies, 40(8), 949–970. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414005285759
MishlerW.RoseR. (2001). What are the origins of political trust? Testing institutional and cultural theories in post-communist societies. Comparative Political Studies, 34(1), 30–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414001034001002
46.
MontgomeryJ. M.NyhanB.TorresM. (2018). How conditioning on posttreatment variables can ruin your experiment and what to do about it. American Journal of Political Science, 62(3), 760–775. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12357
47.
MontinolaG. R.JackmanR. W. (2002). Sources of corruption: A cross-country study. British Journal of Political Science, 32(1), 147–170. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123402000066
48.
MorisiD.JostJ. T.SinghV. (2019). An asymmetrical ‘President-in-Power’ effect. American Political Science Review, 113(2), 614–620. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055418000850
49.
MuñozJ.Falcó-GimenoA.HernándezE. (2020). Unexpected event during survey design: Promise and pitfalls for causal inference. Political Analysis, 28(2), 186–206. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2019.27
50.
NorrisP. (1999). Critical citizens: Global support for democratic government. Oxford University Press.
51.
NorrisP. (2011). Democratic deficit: Critical citizens revisited. Cambridge University Press.
52.
NorrisP.InglehartR. (2019). Cultural backlash and the rise of populism: Trump, Brexit, and authoritarian populism. Cambridge University Press.
53.
NyhanB. (2015). Scandal potential: How political context and news congestion affect the president’s vulnerability to media scandal. British Journal of Political Science, 45(2), 435–466. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123413000458
54.
NyhanB. (2017). Media scandals are political events: How contextual factors affect public controversies over alleged misconduct by US governors. Political Research Quarterly, 70(1), 223–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912916684034
55.
O’DonnellG. (2004). The quality of democracy: Why the rule of law matters. Journal of Democracy, 15(4), 32–46. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2004.0076
PandeR. (2007). Understanding political corruption in low income countries. In SchultzT. P.StraussJ. A. (Eds.), Handbook of development economics (pp. 3155–3184). Elsevier.
59.
PavãoN. (2018). Corruption as the only option: The limits to electoral accountability. The Journal of Politics, 80(3), 996–1010. https://doi.org/10.1086/697954
60.
PereiraC.MeloM. A. (2015). Reelecting corrupt incumbents in exchange for public goods: Rouba mas faz in Brazil. Latin American Research Review, 50(4), 88–115. https://doi.org/10.1353/lar.2015.0054
61.
ReevesA.RogowskiJ. C. (2023). Democratic values and support for executive power. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 53(2), 293–312. https://doi.org/10.1111/psq.12837
62.
Rose-AckermanS. (2006). Political corruption and reform in democracies: Theoretical perspectives. In KawataJ. (Ed.), Comparing political corruption and clientelism (pp. 45–62). Ashgate.
63.
SalzmanR.RamseyA. (2013). Judging the judiciary: Understanding public confidence in Latin American courts. Latin American Politics and Society, 55(1), 73–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-2456.2013.00184.x
SamuelsD. J.ZuccoC. (2018). Partisans, antipartisans, and nonpartisans: Voting behavior in Brazil. Cambridge University Press.
66.
Schwindt-BayerL. A.TavitsM. (2016). Clarity of responsibility, accountability, and corruption. Cambridge University Press.
67.
SeligsonM. A. (2002). The impact of corruption on regime legitimacy: A comparative study of four Latin American countries. The Journal of Politics, 64(2), 408–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2508.00132
68.
SewellW. H. (1996). Historical events as transformations of structures: Inventing revolution at the Bastille. Theory and Society, 25(6), 841–881. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00159818
69.
ShapiroM. (1981). Courts: A comparative and political analysis. University of Chicago Press.
70.
SmulovitzC.PeruzzottiE. (2000). Societal accountability in Latin America. Journal of Democracy, 11(4), 147–158. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2000.0087
71.
SolazH.De VriesC. E.de GeusR. A. (2019). In-group loyalty and the punishment of corruption. Comparative Political Studies, 52(6), 896–926. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414018797951
TitiunikR. (2021). Natural experiments. In DruckmanJ. N.GreenD. P. (Eds.), Advances in experimental political science (pp. 103–129). Cambridge University Press.
TreismanD. (2007). What have we learned about the causes of corruption from ten years of cross-national empirical research?Annual Review of Political Science, 10(1), 211–244. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.081205.095418
Weitz-ShapiroR.WintersM. S. (2017). Can citizens discern? Information credibility, political sophistication, and the punishment of corruption in Brazil. The Journal of Politics, 79(1), 60–74. https://doi.org/10.1086/687287
80.
WintersM. S.Weitz-ShapiroR. (2013). Lacking information or condoning corruption: When do voters support corrupt politicians?Comparative Politics, 45(4), 418–436. https://doi.org/10.5129/001041513806933583
81.
ZallerJ. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion: Cambridge University Press.
82.
ZechmeisterE. J.Zizumbo-ColungaD. (2013). The varying political toll of concerns about corruption in good versus bad economic times. Comparative Political Studies, 46(10), 1190–1218.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
