The OPERA Framework c) Assessing Resources in the ‘Rights or Privileges?’ project Firstly, CESR and ICEFI compared the percentage allocated to social spending generally, and on the rights to health, education and food specifically, to neighboring countries and over time, finding that Guatemala spent significantly less on the social sector and on the relevant sub-sectors. Second, we calculated that the distribution of spending was inequitable, with allocations being skewed away from the most disadvantaged regions or socio-economic sectors of the population. For example, per capita health spending in 2006 was three times higher in the metropolitan area of Guatemala than in Quiché, the department with highest percentage of people living in poverty, one of the largest indigenous populations and among the highest rates of maternal mortality. Education spending was shown to benefit the poorest sector of the population least. Thirdly, the study identified inequities in the raising of revenue that had left the state without the resources needed to progressively realize ESC rights. Despite 10 years of economic growth, the public budget remained one of the smallest in the region. This was due to the country´s extremely low tax burden (one of the lowest in the region) and to a tax system that granted generous exemptions and privileges to the profitable business sector while placing a disproportionate burden on the poor through consumption taxes. Analyzing relevant policy processes Just as in step two, process principles such as transparency, access to information, participation, and accountability should also be assessed in the context of the budget and broader fiscal policy. The budget formulation process should be judged on the extent to which information on budgets is available and accessible to citizens through the principles of participation, non-discrimination, transparency and accountability. It is still the case in some countries that governments draw up budgets in secrecy with no public participation and no proper approval process from the legislature. A useful tool in this exercise is the Open Budget Survey, produced every two years by the International Budget Partnership, which scores countries on the extent to which their national budgets meet standards of transparency and accountability. Similarly, evaluating efforts the state has made to address constraints that hinder the collection of tax revenue, such as closing financial loopholes or prosecuting tax evaders, is essential in giving force to the principles of accountability and transparency. The Tax Justice Network’s financial secrecy index is a useful source of information about countries whose systems encourage legal and financial secrecy. Integrating the analysis of policy efforts in step two, with the analysis in this step on the adequacy of the state’s efforts to generate, allocate and use resources, gives a more comprehensive view of a state’s compliance with its obligations of conduct than an analysis that ends with examining public policies alone. The principle of ‘maximum available resources’ is an essential dimension to assess when considering the steps taken by the state to meet its ESC rights obligations. As discussed above, persuasively countering a state’s claim that lack of means prevents it from taking more action to fulfill ESC rights is one of the biggest challenges for human rights advocates. Drawing on tools of budget and economic policy analysis, this step evaluates the state’s fiscal policies to uncover cases where underfunding in social sectors is instead due to a failure to efficiently and equitably generate and distribute resources. Nevertheless, it is still necessary to explore why such failures arise. Domestic constraints, such as lack of infrastructure, elite capture, endemic corruption, or external pressures, such as aid conditionalities, or competition to attract foreign investment among others, may constrain the state’s decision making. These factors are considered in more detail as part of the following step. 26