available resources" to the full realization of the Covenant rights. Democratic self-determination should not be treated as synonymous with the fiat of the governing elite, however : once the scrutiny by human rights bodies focuses not only on outcomes, relating them to resources and spending choices, but also on procedural requirements of participation, accountability and transparency, its effect is to reinforce self-determination, not to undermine it. It is perhaps telling that, when human rights mechanisms address States' duties under the Covenant, they tend to refrain from imposing specific outcomes -- to increase the taxation on corporate income by a certain amount, for instance, or to dedicate a certain percentage of the revenue to education or the health --. Instead, they insist that budgetary decisions be adopted through a process that recognizes the primacy of human rights. Thus, after the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights expressed its concern about fiscal reforms introduced by the United Kingdom, such as increases of the threshold for the payment of inheritance tax and of the rate of the value added tax, or cuts to the tax rates of corporations, it recommended that the UK "conduct a human rights impact assessment, with broad public participation, of the recent changes introduced to its fiscal policy, including an analysis of the distributional consequences and the tax burden of different income sectors and marginalized and disadvantaged groups".240 Similarly, deploring the impacts on poor families of the Welfare Reform and Work Act enacted by the UK in 2016, the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council criticized the lack of credibility of the impact assessments preceding the cuts to welfare benefits, noting that these cuts were based on often unproven assumptions and that the government had failed to explore the full range of alternative options to ensure the sustainability of the welfare system ; and they asked the government to indicate whether they had "consulted the individuals, groups and families most likely to be affected by the Act".241 The implicit suggestion is that more democratic and inclusive decision-making, better informed by impact assessments, might have led to better policies -more pro-poor, more imaginative,242 and ultimately more in line with the United Kingdom's international commitments. The same set of austerity measures adopted by the United Kingdom in recent years attracted strong criticism from the Committee on the rights of persons with disabilities : after the Committee launched an inquiry into the situation in the United Kingdom -- an exceptional procedure which, according to 240 Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Concluding Observations on the sixth periodic report of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UN doc. E/C.12/GBR/CO/6, 14 July 2016), para. 17. 241 See the Allegation Letter addressed to the United Kingdom by the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing, the Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities, the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, and the Special Rapporteur on the right to food (ref. AL GBR 1/2016, 8 April 2016). See in particular questions 5 ("What evidence is available to demonstrate that the Employment Support Allowance for persons in the WRAG [Work Related Activity Group : people deemed unfit to work as result of health problems or a disability] has created a disincentive for them to take steps towards work? Further, what evidence is available to demonstrate that they would be incentivised to move towards work by reducing the Employment Support Allowance, in view of the fact that they have been assessed not fit for work?"), 7 ("What evidence is available to establish that your Excellency's Government has considered alternative options to the benefit cut, in the context of the full use of maximum available resources?"), 12 ("Please indicate whether there has been an independent reveiw and assessment of the Act and if so, provide details. Please also indicate whether the human rights of persons likley to be subject to the benefit cut have been considered in the review / assessment and what the findings were."), and 13 ("Could you please indicate what mechanism will be available to monitor negative effects of the Act?"). The response of the United Kingdom was sent on 14 July 2016 (Verbal Note of the UK Mission to the United Nations in Geneva, No. 231). On these procedural dimensions, it states simply : "As per the usual Parliamentary process, the Public Bill Committee took 6 oral evidence sessions with a range of stakeholders representing interest groups, which are recorded in the parliamentary record. Furthermore, an open call for evidence was held with 86 pieces of evidence submitted and considered over the course of 8 months of Parliamentary scrutiny and 26 Parliamentary sessions". The scantiness of the response on this procedural front is in direct proportion, perhaps, to the disruptiveness of the question. 242 In what Katharine Young calls a "governance" approach to the constitution of economic and social rights (which she contrasts with the more classic "constitutionalist" approach in which courts and the legal means of enforcement of rights are given priority), the involvement of social actors is seens a important, in particular, to broaden our political imagination as to how such rights might be implemented in specific settings (K. Young, Constituting Economic and Social Rights (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2012), at 262-275). The "human rights informed" democracy envisaged here (enriched by the use of impact assessments and indicators of progress, and including mechanisms to ensure that the voices of the poor are heard) presents strong similarities with that "governance" approach. 52