Why Words Matter: Rethinking Language in Development Work
In the world of nonprofit and development work, language isn’t just a tool—it’s power. The words we choose shape how we understand communities, communicate impact, and influence public perception. Yet, many commonly used terms unintentionally reinforce harmful narratives or strip agency from the very people we aim to support. Terms like beneficiaries, empower, low-income country, marginalized, and vulnerable are deeply embedded in the nonprofit lexicon. But are they always the right words?
In Indonesia, for example, it's common to hear terms like rakyat kecil ("marginalized people") or rakyat miskin ("poor people"). These phrases are often used without ill intent—but their repeated use can shape public perception in subtle yet harmful ways. They risk reducing complex individuals to a single socioeconomic label. David Verga, Head of Brand and Creative at PATH, once said, “One word can have a hundred meanings.” In his article How We Talk About Public Health and Why It Matters, he explains how the language we use doesn’t just reflect our work—it influences how others think about it and act on it. I couldn’t agree more. Words like rakyat kecil and rakyat miskin may be common, but they represent deeper issues in how we view the people we aim to serve. According to Verga, better word choices should be clear – easy to understand; precise – accurately reflect the situation; ethical – avoid harmful framing; and effective – communicate impact and values
Avoiding deficit-based language is one way to do this. Words like at-risk, blighted, distressed, high-crime, and concentrated poverty all highlight problems without context. They ignore the systems and histories that created those conditions in the first place. One of the most widely used terms in nonprofit spaces is beneficiary. Merriam-Webster defines a beneficiary as “a person or thing that receives help or an advantage.” But as Verga points out, the word implies passivity and dependency. It removes agency—and in many cases, dignity.
At PATH, his team favors terms like person, community, country, client, partner, or end user. These are more accurate and human-centered alternatives that emphasize collaboration, not charity. At the Tifa Foundation, where I worked as a Knowledge Management and Communications Officer, we made a conscious shift from beneficiary to rights holder. This change wasn’t just cosmetic—it reframed our work to emphasize partnership and justice. Besides beneficiary, here are other terms worth revisiting:
Developing countries → Try: countries with emerging economies or low- and middle-income countries, depending on context
On the ground / In the field → Try: in community or local partners
At-risk → Try: underserved or contextual descriptions that explain why the risk exists
As Miriam Axel-Lute, CEO and Editor-in-Chief of Shelterforce, reminds us: we should avoid defining people and places by their deficits. Instead, we must tell the truth about how those deficits were created—and who has the power to change them. Finally, the word help deserves scrutiny, based on my opinion. In development work, the government, nonprofits, and donors are not saviors. Communities are not helpless. We are facilitators—working alongside communities, not “saving” them. Replacing help with facilitate can signal partnership, not paternalism.
Language has power. It shapes the way we see others and the way they see themselves. As nonprofit communicators, we must be intentional with our words—choosing language that respects, uplifts, and empowers. To my fellow communication professionals in the development sector: What other terms do you think we should rethink?
