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. Does raising the minimum wage increase inflation?

    Explore whether raising the minimum wage increases inflation. This is a polarizing topic that is inherently linked to unemployment.
  2. How do open market operations affect the money supply of an economy?

    Understand how open market operation affect the supply of money in the economy and learn the specific ways the Federal Reserve ...
  3. What risks does a business owner face under a business structure with unlimited liability?

    Understand the types or risk a business owner faces under a business structure with unlimited liability. Learn why a business ...
  4. What is affected by the interest rate risk?

    Find out more about interest rate risk, how bond prices are affected by interest rate fluctuations and how interest rate ...
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. Economics

    Venezuela: Portrait of a Country in ...

  2. Economics

    How the UK Makes Money

  3. Economics

    Gambling on Macau: Too Risky?

  4. Investing

    What Has Been Groupon’s Growth Strategy?

  5. Economics

    The Economic Impact of Better US-Cuba ...

Trading Center