The OPERA Framework • Comparisons to spending on other ‘non-priority’ sectors within the budget or non-priority projects within a sector. For example, human rights advocates have raised concerns when states allocate considerable resources to build up the military during peacetime or construct infrastructure for hosting ‘mega events’ when large numbers of their population do not have adequate housing. • Comparisons to costing estimates on what the state would need to spend to achieve a particular policy outcome. This analysis might uncover that resource allocations do not give priority to achieving the minimum essential levels of the right(s) under review. Analyzing patterns of expenditure to see how resources are distributed across regions and population groups can determine whether resource allocations prioritize reducing disparities or whether they aggravate existing inequalities by benefiting already better-off groups. The inequitable distribution of resources suggests that the state is not meeting its obligation of non-discrimination. Ideally, this analysis would be done by gathering, or calculating, indicators of per capita spending, disaggregated by geographic region and social group. However, if the data needed to do this is not available, it may be possible to infer who is benefiting from budgetary allocations, by looking at the classification of budget lines. For example, allocations in the education sector that prioritize building of universities in wealthy urban areas, when there is a shortage of primary schools in poor rural areas, could be considered discriminatory spending. Benefit incidence analysis is a quantitative technique that can be used to identify which groups have benefitted most from public spending, which can be adapted for human rights analysis. Analyzing how allocations have evolved over time, in comparison to available resources, can give an indication of whether resources are being employed to progressively realize the right(s) under review. Inflation-adjusted comparisons between budgets over a particular time period can be useful to highlight trends and patterns in how a particular right or particular population group has been prioritized. For example, if allocations to the water sector have decreased, in real terms, while performance on water-related outcomes has deteriorated or stagnated, it may be possible to argue that the state is not complying with its obligation of non-retrogression. In line with the Committee’s criteria outlined above, this analysis is particularly crucial for ascertaining whether or not fiscal austerity measures which cut back in key areas are duly justifiable in light of available resources, when such cuts undermine previous gains made in progressively realizing the right(s) under review. Furthermore, it is important to make a distinction between planned and actual expenditure, as resources that are earmarked for spending on programs and sectors related to the right(s) under review are not always spent effectively or for their originally intended purpose and beneficiaries. Looking at audited financial reports, for example, might show discrepancies between money allocated and actually spent—resulting in either over-spending or under-spending—that raise concerns about inefficient use or wasting of resources if these resources have not translated into an improvement in the enjoyment of human rights. Governance assessment tools, such as social audits, public expenditure tracking surveys (PETS) and quantitative service delivery surveys (QSDS), which focus on the operational impacts of budgets, are useful in this step. By uncovering weaknesses related to the planning and management capacities of ministries, delays in disbursements, leakage of re- 24