Please correct me if I am wrong, but isn't there some precedent for this in a number of Gulf oil states which provide very generous allowances to their citizens and have therefore ended up with a relatively unproductive indigenous population, serviced by a larger migrant worker population? I guess you would have to look closer at local spending patterns to know whether the additional incomes would likely be invested or consumed. On the other hand, I have sometimes wondered why on some large infrastructure projects we spend substantial amounts on consultations and technical studies to determine how resettled people can continue to eek out a meager living on some marginal land they are being relocated to. Much of the money ends up going to consultants, and the people themselves are left with a few new tools and an idealized, imported livelihoods model that may or may not work out for them. Wouldn't a more efficient option at times be to just provide them with a share of the revenues of the project?