The person you're responding to provided a published study from Harvard as their evidence. What's your evidence he's wrong?

It's not just one study, either. This isn't the area of political science I work in. Amongst those who do, it's an essentially universally-held belief that term limits for legislators are empirically a bad idea.

It's a shame. I like the idea of not concentrating power.

FFS! Incumbency is a complete non-factor in corruption. It's always the ability to increase your power, while in office.

Three countries with fairly open and competitive elections, and very high levels of corruption and high levels of incumbency:

https://www.transparency.org/en/countries/india

https://www.transparency.org/en/countries/turkey

https://www.transparency.org/en/countries/hungary

Then there are these least corrupt countries, that elect new people all the time:

https://www.transparency.org/en/countries/finland

https://www.transparency.org/en/countries/new-zealand

Oh... and let's not forget, that the study is about how efficient the governors are... not about corruption at all.