2017 Measuring Compliance 665 secure the welfare basket: a duty with no immediacy, which reduces these rights to mere rhetoric. But does conditionality have to equate to rightsweakness? In the case that the condition is resource-based, such a conclusion would perhaps only follow if it is assumed that there is no valid test for determining whether available resources actually are sufficient for securing the welfare basket. If that assumption were true, then the conclusion seems quite reasonable; it would be very difficult, perhaps impossible, to adequately ascertain violations of these rights. It could be argued, however, that such an assumption might be misplaced. Although conditionality may appear to imply that resources are always insufficient to realize full attainment of the welfare basket, this may not always be the auto-result if a valid test for assessing whether maximum available resources are sufficient or insufficient for achieving it can be specified. The test would need to give precision to the concept of maximum available resources rather than absolve this complex task to the notion of “progressive realization.” It needs to be a test of “extent” and could, say, range from 0 (the welfare basket being perfectly unaffordable within the given resource set) to 1 (the welfare basket being perfectly affordable). As such, the closer the result is to 1, the less incomplete-attainment is justifiable by the condition of resource insufficiency. Indeed, whenever the result is equal to 1 any instance of incomplete-attainment of the welfare basket cannot be justified, which, therefore, would signal some kind of violation. The obligation incumbent on duty-bearers to fulfill social rights does not then, on this account, exist as an absolute immovable threshold across resource contexts. Rather, duty-bearers have an immediate, unconditional obligation to secure the maximum level of the welfare basket that is affordable and have a progressive obligation to fully secure it as soon as resources are sufficient to do so. If the test is precise enough, conditionality need not preclude the obligation from being a “strong”37 immediate one. In defining social rights as rights to a basket of social welfare-type goods, the empirical challenge that remains for dealing with the maximum resources dilemma is then to operationalize maximum available resources so that it is possible to distinguish between those deprivations below full attainment of the welfare basket that exist as a result of factors beyond a duty-bearer’s control and those in which the duty-bearer may be a contributing, if not causal, factor. IV. OPERATIONALIZING MAXIMUM AVAILABLE RESOURCES By now, it is clear that the obligation incumbent on each duty-bearer is determined with reference to its ability to fulfill a substantively defined basket 37. Ronald Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously 188 (1977).