Final answer:
Hazlitt's Broken Window Parable, drawing from Bastiat, teaches about the economic fallacy that destruction stimulates growth. It is separate from the Broken Windows Theory in criminology, which suggests orderly environments deter crime. The parable and the theory both use broken windows as metaphors but address different concepts.
Step-by-step explanation:
The Broken Window Parable, often conflated with the Broken Windows Theory, is actually an illustration by the 19th-century economist Frédéric Bastiat and is not directly related to the criminological theory developed by Wilson and Kelling. Hazlitt, in his economic writings, might have referred to Bastiat's parable to emphasize unintended consequences in economics. Hazlitt's discussions on the broken window seek to explain that an act of destruction, such as breaking a window, is not beneficial to the economy. While it may generate business for the glazier who must repair it, this focuses on only immediate visible effects. The hidden, larger cost includes the shop owner's loss, who now cannot spend that same money on other goods or services. It's a lesson against the fallacy that destruction stimulates economic growth.
The Broken Windows Theory in criminology posits the environment's visual aspects, such as disrepair or vandalism, can foster an atmosphere conducive to crime by signaling a lack of social control. This theory led to Zero Tolerance Policing strategies, which aimed to deter crime by maintaining well-kept urban landscapes, although these strategies have met with controversy over their effectiveness and fairness.
It's crucial to differentiate the economic parable of the broken window, which illustrates a misconception in economic stimulus, from the Broken Windows Theory of criminology, which informs policing strategies and urban maintenance. Both concepts use the imagery of broken windows but in substantially different contexts and with disparate societal implications.