<p>I think the economic term is <strong>free-riders.</strong></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-01-13T17:28:18.167Z
[The Free-Rider Problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-rider_problem)... to fill in the gaps.
J...
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-01-14T08:42:18.360Z
We generally speak of free-riders as being discretionary (opportunistic) consumers (having a choice) that do not pay (often illegally).  This is not the same as a conscientious objector or or lesser taxed individuals in a socialist society. The fence is a public good, yes.  Someone capable of affording their contribution but abstaining/shirking or welching on their obligation may find themselves wolf food.
mckenzm
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-01-14T21:28:24.777Z
While this answer may be correct, you should edit your answer to support it (e.g. by citing a definition or explanation of the term/concept).
V2Blast
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-01-15T00:29:54.453Z
@V2Blast I think in this case it's fine. This is such a basic item of terminology and the OP already described the concept themselves so there is little value in any further elaboration; it would be redundant. I suppose a citation would be harmless but I don't feel it's necessary to "prove" that such a well known term is correct.
JBentley
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-01-15T13:57:20.647Z
I don't think this describes the scenario that OP describes. Otherwise everyone is a free rider.
Braiam
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-01-16T14:50:15.123Z
@user253751 because I'm sure that there are public services/projects that you and I don't agree with but still pay for. Free riders concept is pinned in the "who's (not) paying for this".
Braiam
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-01-13T08:23:33.117Z
2022-01-13T08:23:33.117Z
tdm
<p>&quot;Free Riders&quot; is the term you're looking for.</p>
<p>The classic examples are all something to do with roads: Say three out of four neighbors on a street pay to have their road plowed. The fourth doesn't and still benefits. We would call him a free rider.</p>
<p>That this happens at all is very offensive to some people, but whether and to what extent it's worth solving is not really clear cut. Quick examples: consider if only the three people who paid actually care if the road is paved, and the fourth is on vacation for the next three months. Should he pay? Should he be forced to pay? What if he's just a hermit, and so benefits but doesn't value that benefit?</p>
<p>The &quot;free-rider problem&quot; is strongly related to this, and is basically the game-theory-style incentive to defect from the paying group to the non-paying group.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-01-15T20:08:16.423Z
The "unwilling free-rider" might even actively be opposed to the thing they are supposed to pay for. I have to pay taxes for ridiculously bright street lights requested by neighbours who are afraid of the dark but stay inside, while I'm the only one walking outside at night and would prefer a calmer and more natural environment.
pipe
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-01-15T21:01:08.917Z
@pipe Exactly. Feel free to edit if you think there’s an improvement to be made.
fectin
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-01-15T01:30:26.847Z
2022-01-15T01:30:26.847Z
fectin
<p>Maybe the term <strong>Beneficiaries.</strong> Quite simple, very logical (if not trivial) and is used in economic literature (especially in terms of international development). Another possible, although less common, term is <strong>recipients.</strong></p>
<p>Note: In current approaches to international development, these terms are now out-of-date and <strong>participants</strong> is almost always preferred. It is well accepted that development outcomes are more successful and sustainable when those who benefit participate and contribute.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-01-14T09:42:23.723Z
@Giskard - I would counter that view in that if you pay premiums/taxes, you are participating in an economic transaction (whether that participation is passive or active).  You have made a decision to participate and are providing some input into what you may receive. You are a participant first and foremost as without that decision you could not benefit.
Mari153
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-01-14T09:44:08.903Z
I understand what you mean but this (IMO) is not the way the words benefit and beneficiary are used in economics. I believe you that there is a subdiscipline in which this usage became accepted before it was phased out.
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-01-14T15:22:37.867Z
Everyone who benefits from something is a beneficiary, whether they paid or not.
Barmar
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-01-14T09:18:40.457Z
2022-01-14T09:50:59.290Z
2022-01-14T09:50:59.290Z
Mari153
<p>I believe there's an economics term that describes people who refuse to participate in a community project even though they receive the same benefit from the project.  For example, the village needs a new fence to keep the wolves out.  There are some who refuse to contribute to the new fence.  The new fence still gets built and the holdouts still benefit.  What is the correct term for the the holdouts?</p>

<consumer-theory><economic-terms>
Economics term for those who benefit even though they didn't contribute
michael
# Economics term for those who benefit even though they didn't contribute

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-01-13)

I believe there's an economics term that describes people who refuse to participate in a community project even though they receive the same benefit from the project. For example, the village needs a new fence to keep the wolves out. There are some who refuse to contribute to the new fence. The new fence still gets built and the holdouts still benefit. What is the correct term for the the holdouts?

**Tags:** consumer-theory, economic-terms


---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2022-01-13. Score: 41

I think the economic term is **free-riders.**

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: [The Free-Rider Problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-rider_problem)... to fill in the gaps.  
> **username_3**: We generally speak of free-riders as being discretionary (opportunistic) consumers (having a choice) that do not pay (often illegally).  This is not the same as a conscientious objector or or lesser taxed individuals in a socialist society. The fence is a public good, yes.  Someone capable of affording their contribution but abstaining/shirking or welching on their obligation may find themselves wolf food.  
> **username_4**: While this answer may be correct, you should edit your answer to support it (e.g. by citing a definition or explanation of the term/concept).  
> **username_5**: @username_4 I think in this case it's fine. This is such a basic item of terminology and the OP already described the concept themselves so there is little value in any further elaboration; it would be redundant. I suppose a citation would be harmless but I don't feel it's necessary to "prove" that such a well known term is correct.  
> **username_6**: I don't think this describes the scenario that OP describes. Otherwise everyone is a free rider.  
> **username_6**: @user253751 because I'm sure that there are public services/projects that you and I don't agree with but still pay for. Free riders concept is pinned in the "who's (not) paying for this".  

---

### Answer by username_7 on 2022-01-15. Score: 3

"Free Riders" is the term you're looking for.

The classic examples are all something to do with roads: Say three out of four neighbors on a street pay to have their road plowed. The fourth doesn't and still benefits. We would call him a free rider.

That this happens at all is very offensive to some people, but whether and to what extent it's worth solving is not really clear cut. Quick examples: consider if only the three people who paid actually care if the road is paved, and the fourth is on vacation for the next three months. Should he pay? Should he be forced to pay? What if he's just a hermit, and so benefits but doesn't value that benefit?

The "free-rider problem" is strongly related to this, and is basically the game-theory-style incentive to defect from the paying group to the non-paying group.

> **Comments:**
> **username_8**: The "unwilling free-rider" might even actively be opposed to the thing they are supposed to pay for. I have to pay taxes for ridiculously bright street lights requested by neighbours who are afraid of the dark but stay inside, while I'm the only one walking outside at night and would prefer a calmer and more natural environment.  
> **username_7**: @username_8 Exactly. Feel free to edit if you think there’s an improvement to be made.  

---

### Answer by username_9 on 2022-01-14. Score: -1

Maybe the term **Beneficiaries.** Quite simple, very logical (if not trivial) and is used in economic literature (especially in terms of international development). Another possible, although less common, term is **recipients.**

Note: In current approaches to international development, these terms are now out-of-date and **participants** is almost always preferred. It is well accepted that development outcomes are more successful and sustainable when those who benefit participate and contribute.

> **Comments:**
> **username_9**: @username_10 - I would counter that view in that if you pay premiums/taxes, you are participating in an economic transaction (whether that participation is passive or active).  You have made a decision to participate and are providing some input into what you may receive. You are a participant first and foremost as without that decision you could not benefit.  
> **username_10**: I understand what you mean but this (IMO) is not the way the words benefit and beneficiary are used in economics. I believe you that there is a subdiscipline in which this usage became accepted before it was phased out.  
> **username_11**: Everyone who benefits from something is a beneficiary, whether they paid or not.  

---

