Can providing a basic income to a subset of poor citizens benefit the government politically?

Question

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."

Answer 1

The following are studies of the effects of conditional transfers in Brazil and Mexico, which was so far the most relevant information I have found. Both of these are in the context of popularly elected governments. I intend to edit this answer if/when I find additional material. I would be very grateful too to anyone reviewing what I have found, adding comments or pointing out additional material.

Focus on Brazil's Poor Helps Rousseff's Reelection Chances suggests that recipients of the "Bolza Familia" were significantly more likely to vote for the incumbent government, possibly enough to tip an election.

Can Conditional Cash Transfers Reduce Poverty and Crime? Evidence from Brazil suggests that the Bolza was linked to a "reduction in robbery, theft and kidnapping rates", though is slightly cautious about the link. It says however that "no significant effects were found for homicide and murder".

The Equality Trust Research Digest: Violence: Income Inequality and Violent Crime finds on the other hand that "small reductions in income inequality cause large reductions in homicide", which, if applicable, I would expect to also greatly reduce levels of popular dissatisfaction against the government by making all levels of society feel more secure.

The Effect of Conditional Cash Transfers on Voter Behavior: Evidence from Honduras did not find evidence of benefits of the transfer programme on government electoral success. They do wonder whether this is because the electorate are more interested in which party will expand the programme more in future rather than being grateful for what has already been done.

Rewarding Voters Through Welfare Transfers in Mexico and Brazil does not actually draw conclusions about the effectiveness of using cash transfers to political ends, but rather looks at the process and party strategies.

Political Competition and Local Social Spending: Evidence from Brazil suggests that high levels of social spending significantly reduce the level of political competition. For citizens this is probably not an unmitigated advantage, but it certainly is for a government which would like to stay in power.

Welfare states and social cohesion in Europe: Does social service quality matter? suggests that "An individual who faces high levels of economic strain, perceives there to be on average 8% less social cohesion than someone who experiences no economic strain at all", which suggests that targeting poor areas with a limited basic income might be expected to increase the overall perception of social cohesion in the population.

Thaksin Populism and Beyond: A Study of Thaksin's Pro-Poor Populist Policies in Thailand is a study of policies of Thaksin Shinawatra in Thailand which I think are close enough to targeted basic income payments to be relevant. The paper focuses critically on how the policies could be better implemented, but also documents the immense political capital they brought Thaksin.

Answer 2

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

So what you're essentially asking is: "Do you think people can be bribed not to revolt?"

The obvious answer is "Why yes, yes they can.. until you run out of other people's money to hand out!".

Is there a follow-up question too? Perhaps something like: "Would bribing the masses not to revolt be preferrable to violently subjugating them?", and one way to answer that is: "Yeah, if you absolutely need to rule over people and prevent them from revolting, then I guess bribing them would be preferrable to brutalizing them!"

But another, perhaps more pertinent question arises: Why would you be asking questions like that?