We find that market-oriented societies have a greater aversion to unethical behavior, higher levels of trust, and are not significantly associated with lower levels of morality under any model specification.

From The moral costs of markets: Testing the deterioration hypothesis by Justin Callais, Colin Harris, and Ben Borchard.  From the Abstract.

The expansion of markets has generated significant material benefits. Yet some worry that this increase in wealth has come at a significant moral cost. Markets may crowd out or even corrupt existing moral values, causing moral deterioration. We test this hypothesis using both fixed effects and matching methods to estimate the impact of market institutions on a society's moral values. Contrary to the deterioration hypothesis, we find that market-oriented societies have a greater aversion to unethical behavior, higher levels of trust, and are not significantly associated with lower levels of morality under any model specification. Furthermore, we find that becoming more market oriented does not cause a significant reduction in a society's moral values. Together, our results suggest that being or becoming more market oriented does not cause moral deterioration.

Any system with positive incentives is obviously prone to individuals wanting to circumvent the rules, be they legal rules, personal rule, religious rules, or cultural rules.

The flip side of that argument is that people advance in a market economy by providing others goods or services they desire at a price and quality they find acceptable.  The more they sell the more benefit is generated for everyone.

Any sociology research is prone to criticisms but it is interesting to see one which moves against the faddish norms of academia.