To enhance government accountability, reformers have advocated strengthening institutions of "horizontal accountability", particularly auditing institutions that can punish lawbreaking elected officials. Yet these institutions differ in their willingness to punish corrupt politicians, which is often attributed to variation in their degree of independence from the political branches. Taking advantage of a randomized natural experiment embedded in Brazil's State Audit Courts, we study how variation in the appointment mechanisms for choosing auditors affects political accountability. We show that auditors appointed under few constraints by elected officials punish lawbreaking politicians-particularly co-partisans-at lower rates than bureaucrats insulated from political influence. Additionally, we find that even when executives are heavily constrained in their appointment of auditors by meritocratic and professional requirements, auditors still exhibit a pro-politician bias in decision-making. Our results suggest that removing bias requires a level of insulation from politics rare among institutions of horizontal accountability.

BAR maintains the practice of submitting all documents received to the plagiarism check, using specific tools, e.g.: iThenticate.Peer review: is responsible for acknowledging an article's potential contribution to the frontiers of scholarly knowledge on business or public administration. The authors are the ultimate responsible for the consistency of the theoretical references, the accurate report of empirical data, the personal perspectives, and the use of copyrighted material. This content was evaluated using the double-blind peer review process. The disclosure of the reviewers' information on the first page is made only after concluding the evaluation process, and with the voluntary consent of the respective reviewers.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract