How does a major corruption scandal shape public support for democratic institutions? This study uses the unexpected timing of Brazil’s historic 2015 corruption revelations to estimate causal effects on system support.
🗞️ Surprise Natural Experiment: News Broke During Latinobarometer Fieldwork
A corruption scandal made headlines while the Latinobarometer survey was in the field, creating a quasi-random split between respondents interviewed before and after the story appeared. This timing provides a plausibly exogenous shock to measure how scandal exposure changes attitudes.
📊 Research Design and Data
- Data source: Latinobarometer survey overlapping the 2015 scandal coverage.
- Identification strategy: Regression discontinuity exploiting random assignment of respondents to interview dates before versus after the news break.
- Design advantage: The unexpected news provides a clean test of short-run causal effects of scandal exposure on mass attitudes.
🔎 Hypotheses Tested
- Conditional hypothesis: The public rewards democratic institutions for uncovering corruption and punishes only those institutions implicated.
- Cynical hypothesis: The public punishes democratic institutions broadly, viewing them as complicit or ineffective at preventing corruption.
📈 Key Findings
- Results favor the cynical hypothesis: being randomly sampled after the scandal’s news led to a significant drop in trust in institutions.
- Trust declined broadly, affecting institutions both implicated and not implicated in the scandal.
- Exposure to the scandal also reduced endorsement of democratic values and overall support for democracy.
💡 Why It Matters
These findings show that high-profile corruption can weaken system-level support beyond targeted blame, with implications for accountability, institutional legitimacy, and the resilience of democracy in the face of scandals.
