Tackling elite impunity in the EU. The Case for a European Court for White-Collar Crime

Abstract

Purpose: This study examines how different systems of moral values influence voters’ preferences for political leaders and shape perceptions of corruption in Brazil and Mexico. It specifically investigates whether personal (private-sphere) morality or social (public-sphere) morality carries greater weight when voters face trade-offs between honesty and effectiveness.

 Method: A mixed-methods design was employed. Quantitatively, longitudinal data from the World Values Survey (1981–2019) were analyzed using factor analysis and a Moral Evaluation Index to distinguish personal and social moral values and assess their evolution over time. Qualitatively, comparative online focus groups were conducted in both countries, structured around the Tripartite Model of Attitudes, to explore cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions of electoral decision-making.

 Findings: The results show that moral values are dynamic and context-dependent. In both countries, voters exhibit higher moral demands in the public sphere than in the private sphere, contradicting the expectation of greater tolerance for public transgressions. Brazilians tend to prioritize public integrity, favoring honest candidates even at the expense of perceived effectiveness. Mexicans, while valuing both moral dimensions, display a more pragmatic stance, often tolerating corruption when candidates are viewed as competent. Qualitative evidence reveals attitudinal inconsistency: declared moral principles frequently give way to emotional reactions, perceptions of extremism, and contextual considerations during concrete electoral choices.

 Originality/Value: The study advances the literature by integrating longitudinal survey data with experimental qualitative evidence to demonstrate that moral reasoning in electoral behavior is not fixed but shaped by emotional, political, and institutional contexts. It highlights the limits of moral discourse in ensuring democratic accountability and explains why support for “dishonest” candidates persists despite widespread moral condemnation of corruption.