Stakeholders

"Stakeholders" (vs. “people who need to play a role”): This isn’t an exact translation—not all “stakeholders” presumably “need to play a role.” But we make the substitution mainly because the original word plays a cheap trick, and the translation tries to make it honest. In most civic and charitable projects, the people with a “stake” in the results are legion.

When people try to improve schools or health care, who has a “stake” in the results? Answer: All of us— every last woman, man, and child. Half the time, "stakeholders" is a passable substitute for “all the living, and even a few of the dead.” As such, in any practical context it is useless noise. In the sentence in question, the only people actually at issue are the ones whose “stake” is big enough to warrant giving a little sweat to the cause. For those people, this translation fits fine.

The only explanation for the spectacular success of "stakeholders" in the philanthropic demimonde is that the word sounds tantalizingly like its cousin “stockholders.” For those with a painful, gnawing envy of Wall Street and all its blandishments, the desire for stockholders must have the merciless pull of an addiction. Among Wall Street wannabes, a word that gives the thrilling feeling of stock without the nuisance of actually paying dividends would naturally be a big hit. For those with a chemical dependence on the gibberish of high finance, "stakeholders" is something like methadone: It eases some of the craving, without inflicting the harmful side-effects of the real thing.