I am looking for empirical evidence that making direct monetary payments to targeted groups of deprived people - say paying all families living in a certain poor district fifty dollars every month, similar to a guaranteed basic income (see Wikipedia) or what the charity GiveDirectly does - can provide short to medium term political benefits to the government (local, regional, national, other) doing it, as well as under which circumstances the political benefits might be particularly high per dollar spent compared to other forms of subsidies or spending.
Political benefits might include increased government popularity, increased political stability, decreased crime rates or decreased ethnic tension. Circumstances might include target group (urban community, rural community) and overall political situation and structure (form of goverment, economic climate, situation of peace or conflict).
Dollars are used here as the typical reference currency. Potential sources of empirical evidence might include studies of Brazil's "Bolsa Família" programme.
Comments about who might be well placed to or interested in helping answer this question are also very welcome. The Effective Altruim forum was already suggested elsewhere. Suggestions for better tags are also welcome.
Edit for clarification: this question is specifically about the political benefits to the doner, not benefits to the receivers.
Edit: my motivation for this is to build up a body of data which could be used for lobbying purposes, potentially including using such payouts as an alternative (potentially even an economical one) to repression for maintaining political stability.
Edit: to quote Bill Gates: "If we can find approaches that meet the needs of the poor in ways that generate profits for business and votes for politicians, we will have found a sustainable way to reduce inequity in the world."