Enhancing Stronger Systems: Corruption, Judicial Perceptions, and Public Trust

In business economics, the justice system plays an important role in maintaining a healthy society, protecting rights, and upholding the values that support economic activity. Our hypothetical Allegory of the Clan illustrates how hate, corruption, and victim-blaming can work together to undermine social contracts, weaken trust, and create human capital problems.

A strong, functioning judicial system is important not only to society but also to everyday business. Contracts and business relationships depend on the expectation that all parties will be treated fairly and that there will be consequences when agreements or rights are violated. When people trust institutions to do the right thing, there is an economic advantage because trust encourages participation, investment, cooperation, and long-term relationships.

Conversely, when corruption or misconduct goes uncorrected, it can undermine confidence in the entire system. Ideally, there should be effective mechanisms for holding corrupt individuals accountable and removing them from positions of authority. In practice, however, this can be difficult when institutional protections and layers of immunity shield poor or intentionally harmful behavior. That becomes especially troubling when problems are well known and have created long-term patterns. 

These challenges demonstrate why accountability and institutional integrity matter to both society and the economy. When people believe the system is fair and capable of correcting wrongdoing, they are more likely to participate in it and trust its institutions. When that confidence disappears, the resulting costs can extend well beyond the immediate victims and create broader social and economic problems.

Corruption, Judicial Legitimacy, and Public Trust

• The study examines how people evaluate courts when corruption cases involving powerful business leaders raise questions about both judicial outcomes and procedural fairness.
• Using a survey experiment with 1,042 respondents in Brazil, the researcher manipulated both judicial misconduct and whether a corruption conviction was upheld or overturned.
• The findings indicate that outcomes mattered more than procedural irregularities: respondents were substantially less supportive of courts when corruption convictions against business leaders were overturned.
• Procedural fairness still influenced perceptions of individual judges, particularly when judges appeared self-interested, biased, or improperly involved with prosecutors.
• Overall, the research suggests that public legitimacy may depend heavily on whether courts are perceived as holding powerful economic actors accountable, demonstrating the tension between due process and substantive justice.

Vilaça, L. (2026). Corruption and the legitimacy of courts: Experimental evidence from Brazil. Social Forces. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soag029