describe different proposals that have been made to clarify how much efforts we can expect from States. 1. Social investment ratios A first set of proposals provide benchmarks to assess whether the efforts invested by States are sufficient to comply with the need to fulfil economic, social and cultural rights, based on certain assumptions as to the needs to be covered. The human expenditure ratio proposed by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) falls under the category. In the second of its series of annual Human Development Reports, published in 1991, the UNDP proposes to analyze how public expenditures can be mobilized in favor of human development objectives. The 1991 HDR proposes the use of four ratios in this regard.187 The public expenditure ratio is the percentage of national income that goes into public expenditure: it represents the weight of the public sector in the total GDP of the country. The social allocation ratio is the share of social services in total government spending: it measures how much of the public budgets goes to finance health, housing, or education, rather than to other expenses such as those related to national defence or infrastructural projects. The social priority ratio measures, within the public spending that goes to social services, what goes to basic health care, primary education, and the extension of basic water systems to poor areas in of both cities and rural areas, all of which are called "human priority concerns". These three ratios can be combined to lead to a fourth ratio, which the HDR calls the human expenditure ratio, representing the share of total GDP that goes to human priority concerns. Where human development outcomes are poor, it may mean that the decisions on the respective allocations are inadequate and should be revised. The UNDP estimates that the human expenditure ratio "may need to be around 5 % if a country wishes to do well in human development". This, the UNDP suggests, should ideally be done "keeping the public expenditure moderate (around 25 %) [for instance by cutting down on military spending, on internal policing, on debt servicing or on the costs associated with loss-making public enterprises], [but allocating] much of this to the social sectors (more than 40 %) and [focusing] on the social priority areas (giving them more than 50 %)"; in contrast, a less efficient option is to "withdraw a large proportion of national income into the public sector, to depress private investment and initiative and to restrict the economic growth and resource expansion that can ultimately finance human development".188 Countries with a high public expenditure ratio but a low ranking of social priorities would therefore constitute the worst case: based on data from 1988, the HDR 1991 places in this category countries such as India (with a public sector representing 37 % of the GDP (public expenditure ratio) but only 2.5 % of the GDP going to human priorities (human expenditure ratio)), Nigeria (29 % public expenditure ratio and 2.2 % human expenditure ratio), Pakistan (25 % and 0.8 % respectively), or Indonesia (25 % and 0.6 %). Drawing attention to such figures is useful to stimulate a public debate about whether a State is setting the right priorities, that are consistent both with human development aims and with the progressive realization of the corresponding economic and social rights. As such however, the benchmarks set by the UNDP cannot form a substitute for a deeper analysis relating outcomes to the actions or omissions of the State. First, some public investments that would not count as corresponding to "human priority" issues or even to "social services", in fact matter significantly to the realization of economic and social rights. That is largely what, in the respect-protect-fulfil typology of State obligations,189 the duty to "facilitate" -- as part of the broader duty to fulfil -- refers to. The duty to facilitate may be described as duty to take proactive measures in order to create the conditions that will ensure that individuals may enjoy the right in concern: it consists, in brief, in a duty to create the required "enabling conditions" 187 United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Report 1991: Financing Human Development, chapter 3, at 39. 188 Id., 39. 189 See on this typology Olivier De Schutter, International Human Rights Law (Cambridge : Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014) 280-291. 39