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?
"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.
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Note: In current approaches to international development, these terms are now out-of-date and participants is almost always preferred.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.