Legal provisions that interfere with the arrest and prosecution of
politicians exist throughout much of the modern democratic world. Why
and with what effects do societies choose to place their politicians
above the law? We examine the institution of immunity both theoretically
and empirically. Our theoretical model demonstrates that immunity is a
double-edged sword; while immunity provisions protect honest politicians
from politically-motivated accusations, they may also incentivize
corrupt behavior and attract dishonest individuals to public office. Which
effect dominates depends on the quality of the judicial system. In order
to empirically analyze the effects of immunity provisions, we quantify
the strength of immunity protection in 73 democracies. We find empirical
evidence that, though stronger immunity protection is associated with
greater incidence of corruption where the judicial system is
independent, this relationship has more ambiguous effects where the legal
system is weak and prone to politicization. These effects remain after
controlling for standard determinants of corruption