The previous step on policy efforts sought to identify gaps that hinder the translation of policies and programs into the efficient and equitable delivery of quality goods and services on the ground. Such gaps commonly stem from under-resourcing of these policies. Frequently, government authorities attribute underfunding to a lack of sufficient resources. However, this claim needs to be interrogated, as often it is instead due to a failure to efficiently and equitably generate and distribute resources. This step assesses the resources devoted by the state to meeting its human rights commitments. The focus of this step is therefore the budgetary and other fiscal efforts by the state to generate and deploy the maximum of available resources, in line with its human rights obligations. Specifically, the step uses budget analysis techniques at a more macro-level, beyond the specific interventions assessed in the previous step. Identifying larger fiscal policy trends enables us to determine whether maximum available resources are being mobilized and used to prioritize minimum core obligations, reduce inequalities in and progressively realize the right(s) under review. This step also examines the budget cycle process from the perspective of the human rights principles of participation, non-discrimination, transparency and accountability. This broader analysis considers not only the expenditure side of the budget (how funds are spent), but also the revenue side (how these funds are generated), as well as the broader macro-economic policy context within which budget decisions are made. Budget analysis can be carried out at varying levels of technical and analytical detail – and can therefore be adapted for different uses and types of actors. a) Evaluating planned and actual resource expenditures This step first gathers budgetary information to determine how much the state allocates to the social sectors relevant to the right(s) under review and who benefits. Resource allocations can be assessed against the principles of minimum core obligations, non-discrimination and progressive realization in order to identify what areas are prioritized in the budget, what groups are prioritized and how prioritizations have evolved over time. Using allocation ratios that show how much is being earmarked for key sectors, as a percentage of total government expenditure or GDP, helps to identify which areas are being prioritized. Sometimes these indicators are already calculated and can be accessed on online databases, but such ratios can be easily calculated directly from the budget. UNDP suggests the use of four overarching ratios that can be used to monitor public spending on human development: the public expenditure ratio (government share of GNP), the social allocation ratio (social services share of government spending), the social priority ratio (the human priority share of social sector spending) and the human expenditure ratio (the human priority share of GNP). Benchmarks help to judge the reasonableness of these ratios. These might include: • Comparisons to neighboring countries or countries with similar GDP. • Comparisons to national, regional or international targets or commitments agreed to by the government. These might be found in development plans or political accords. In the Abuja Declaration, for example, African governments committed to allocating 15% of their budgets to the health sector. • Guidelines from international agencies (e.g. WHO global target of minimum 5% of GNP for health expenditures or UNICEF’s Innocenti Report Card 8, which sets a benchmark for a minimum level of public spending on early childhood education and care as 1% of GDP). Assessing compliance with the obligation to fulfill economic, social and cultural rights 23