What is the broken window fallacy?

By Andrew Beattie AAA
A:

The broken window fallacy was first expressed by the great French economist, Frederic Bastiat. Bastiat used the parable of a broken window to point out why destruction doesn't benefit the economy.

In Bastiat's tale, a man's son breaks a pane of glass, meaning the man will have to pay to replace it. The onlookers consider the situation and decide that the boy has actually done the community a service because his father will have to pay the glazier (window repair man) to replace the broken pane. The glazier will then presumably spend the extra money on something else, jump-starting the local economy. (For related reading, see Economics Basics.)

The onlookers come to believe that breaking windows stimulates the economy, but Bastiat points out that further analysis exposes the fallacy. By breaking the window, the man's son has reduced his father's disposable income, meaning his father will not be able purchase new shoes or some other luxury good. Thus, the broken window might help the glazier, but at the same time, it robs other industries and reduces the amount being spent on other goods. Moreover, replacing something that has already been purchased is a maintenance cost, rather than a purchase of truly new goods, and maintenance doesn't stimulate production. In short, Bastiat suggests that destruction - and its costs - don't pay in an economic sense.

The broken window fallacy is often used to discredit the idea that going to war stimulates a country's economy. As with the broken window, war causes resources and capital to be funneled out of industries that produce goods to industries that destroy things, leading to even more costs. According to this line of reasoning, the rebuilding that occurs after war is primarily maintenance costs, meaning that countries would be much better off not fighting at all.

The broken window fallacy also demonstrates the faulty conclusions of the onlookers; by only taking into consideration the man with the broken window and the glazier who must replace it, the crowd forgets about the missing third party (such as the shoe maker). In this sense, the fallacy comes from making a decision by looking only at the parties directly involved in the short term, rather than looking at all parties (directly and indirectly) involved in the short and long term.

For related reading, see Macroeconomic Analysis.

RELATED FAQS

  1. When do economists use GNP?

    Learn about the ways economists use GNP. Find out how the Bureau of Economic Analysis monitors U.S. economic performance ...
  2. Is cyclical unemployment always due to recessions?

    Learn about the mechanisms that cause cyclical unemployment and find out about the role recessions and downturns play in ...
  3. What are some alternatives to real GDP?

    Learn about economic measures used instead of real GDP and the limitations of real GDP. Find out in which situations nominal ...
  4. Does cash-on-delivery aid produce better results than a loan?

    Learn of the arguments about the efficacy of cash on delivery, or COD, aid to poor areas, as set forth by its proponents ...
RELATED TERMS
  1. Nordic Model

    The social welfare and economic systems adopted by Nordic countries.
  2. Welfare Capitalism

    Definition of welfare capitalism.
  3. LIBOR

    LIBOR or ICE LIBOR (previously BBA LIBOR) is a benchmark rate ...
  4. Global Recession

    An extended period of economic decline around the world. The ...
  5. Economic Exposure

    A type of foreign exchange exposure caused by the effect of unexpected ...
  6. Heckscher-Ohlin Model

    An economic theory that states that countries export what they ...

You May Also Like

Related Articles
  1. Investing

    What Has Been Groupon’s Growth Strategy?

  2. Economics

    The Economic Impact of Better US-Cuba ...

  3. Economics

    Most Powerful And Influential Public ...

  4. Economics

    The Best 4 Places To Invest In Latin ...

  5. Economics

    China Will Continue To Dominate World ...

Trading Center