Chapter 3 | Page 125 under the ICESCR-OP might interfere with the national policy making and budgetary process.111 The key issues were that resource allocation decisions would better be left to the States and the Committee should not interfere with the process.112 Some also questioned whether the allocation of resources can be a legitimate issue under the Optional Protocol.113 These discussions clearly point to recognition of the State’s primary role in resource allocation as an integral part of the realisation of the ESC rights. One of the central, yet extremely difficult, questions in relation to resource allocation for ESC rights is that of the trade-offs involved in terms of what can be achieved today with available resources against what future resource potential that can be achieved through further investments in non-ESC rights areas. Calculations conducted by Susan Randolph and Patrick Guyer shows that fulfilling ESC rights now has the effect of enhancing future resources capacity thereby expanding the potential for enhanced ESC rights fulfilment in the future.114 To this effect, the feasible level for a State to achieve its ESC rights obligations within available resources and the progress it makes in fulfilling these rights with increased available resources can be effectively analysed using the Achievement Possibility Frontier (APF) proposed by Randolph, Fukuda-Parr, and Lawson-Remer.115 The APF can also be used to 111 Report of the open-ended working group to consider options regarding the elaboration of an optional protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on its first session, 60th sess, UN Doc E/CN.4/2004/44 (15 March 2004), [21]; Economic and Social Council, Report of the open-ended working group to consider options regarding the elaboration of an optional protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on its second session, 61st sess, UN Doc E/CN.4/2005/52 (10 February 2005), [6]. 112 Report of the Open-ended Working Group to consider options regarding the elaboration of an optional protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on its third session, E/CN.4/2006/47, above n 54, [14] [21] [89]. 113 Report of the open-ended working group to consider options regarding the elaboration of an optional protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on its first session, E/CN.4/2004/44, above n 111, [57]. 114 See for example, Susan Randolph and Patrick Guyer, 'Tracking the Historical Evolution of States’ Compliance with their Economic and Social Rights Obligations of Result: Insights from the Historical SERF Index' (Working Paper No 18, The Human Rights Institute University of Connecticut, <http://web2.uconn.edu/economics/working/18.pdf>. 115 Sakiko Fukuda-Parr, Terra Lawson-Remer and Susan Randolph, 'Measuring the Progressive Realization of Human Rights Obligations: An Index of Economic and Social Rights Fulfillment' (Economics Working Papers. Paper 200822 University of Connecticut, Department of Economics; Randolph and Guyer.