for such enjoyment.190 Such conditions may require investment in infrastructures, ranging from roads and grain storage facilities to clean energy and agricultural research and development, that do not fall under the narrow definitions of either "human priority" or "social services". Yet, such investments can be vital both to human development and to the realization of certain economic and social rights such as the right to food or the right to housing. In 1991, when the Human Development Report on Financing for Development was published, it was perhaps necessary to emphasize the need to focus more on the needs of the poor in social spending, as investments in infrastructures had been mobilizing both domestic resources and international donors' contributions during the previous two decades191; but two decades and a half later, we now understand better the limitations of an approach that aims to respond to the most urgent needs, without addressing the deeper causes of the inability of the poor to climb out of poverty and graduating out from short-term support measures. In addition, it cannot be ruled out that a State shall ensure an adequate level of fulfilment of human rights even though it dedicates less than the ratio of 5 % to total GDP to social priority issues, the ratio suggested by the UNDP if countries want to "do well in human development".192 Where, for example, a smaller percentage of the total GDP goes to healthcare in State A than in State B, but healthcare is both more affordable and of better quality in State A than in State B, should we consider that State B complies with the requirements of the right to health, when State A does not? Perhaps the total GDP per capita is significantly higher in State A, so that in absolute terms, the public spending per pupil in State A is higher than in State B193 ; or perhaps the resources are used more efficiently in State A than in State B, for instance because of a greater emphasis being put on preventive medicine. Should we care more about the results achieved, or about whether the efforts deployed by the State correspond to the resources available -- its capacity to fulfil rights? Of course, the notion of "progressive realization" of economic and social rights "to the maximum of [each State's] available resources", as prescribed by article 2 para. 1 of the Covenant, bridges the conceptual gap between obligations of result and obligations of means, by requiring from States not that they achieve certain results (by whichever means they see fit), but that they dedicate a sufficient share of the resources at their disposal to move towards the full realization of economic and social rights, in a never-ending quest for improvement. Yet, apart from the fact that this would provide no indication as to which share is "sufficient", it does not take into account that beyond a certain level of enjoyment, the financing of economic and social rights has a decreasing marginal utility, which means that determining fixed percentages of public expenditure (or of a country's total incomes) is hardly defensible: in a country where access to all levels of education is free and where the educational services are of good standard, is it justified to still demand that any increase in GDP results in a 190 Sub-Commission for the promotion and protection of human rights, The right to adequate food and to be free from hunger. Updated study on the right to food, submitted by Mr. Asbjørn Eide in accordance with Sub- Commission decision 1998/106 (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1999, 28 June 1999), para. 52 ("the State has the obligation to facilitate opportunities by which the rights listed can be enjoyed"); Asbjørn Eide, "Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as Human Rights", in Asbjørn Eide, Catharina Krause and Alan Rosas (eds), Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: A Textbook (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 2nd ed., 2001): 9-28, at 24; Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 12 (1999): The right to food, (E/C.12/1999/5), para. 15 ("The obligation to fulfil (facilitate) means the State must pro-actively engage in activities intended to strengthen people's access to and utilization of resources and means to ensure their livelihood, including food security"). As Eide has remarked, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights occasionally refers explicitly to duties that belong to this category: Article 11(2), for instance, describing the duty to ensure "basic freedom from hunger" and to ensure the right to food, provides that the State shall take measures to improve production, conservation and distribution of food by making full use of technical and scientific knowledge and by developing or reforming agrarian systems. 191 It will be noted however that the UNDP does acknowledge the important role of the State in providing such public goods, in particular through infrastructural projects: the State should "create physical infrastructure such as roads, railways, harbours, electric power stations and telecommunications", all of which often will be best provided by the State (Human Development Report 1991: Financing for Development, cited above, at 39; the UNDP adds, however, that "where private enterprises can provide it efficiently, and does so, policies must promote private investment"). 192 Human Development Report 1991: Financing for Development, cited above, at 40. 193 The UNDP provides examples, based on data from 1988-1990: "The Republic of Korea and Malaysia spend similar amounts on social priority concerns per person ($128), even though Malaysia's human expenditure ratio is twice that of the Republic of Korea, because the latter's GNP per capita is twice that of Malaysia. Similarly, Kuwait's human expenditure ratio is half that of Botswana, yet its absolute expenditure per person is nearly seven times that of Botswana" (Human Development Report 1991: Financing for Development, cited above, at 40). 40