Chapter 1 | Page 13 While a variety of different approaches can be employed to plug-in priority areas to these political decision matrices, such decisions can be further complicated by the ambiguity of the objectives themselves and by pressure from advocates who promote the objectives. In this context, it is recognised that: The allocation of scarce resources is inevitably subject to an array of political, economic, cultural and philosophical demands, of which human rights standards are but one claim. And no matter how fervently we might wish it otherwise, that is the Realpolitik.33 In other words, as suggested here by Ben Saul, David Kinley and Jacqueline Mowbray, resource allocation decisions are not driven only by human rights goals, but also by a number of other public policy goals and priorities. At the same time, it is worth noting that the democratic voice and demands of the society are also part and parcel of realpolitik itself, which therefore can be influenced through better organised and concerted participation and advocacy. Such efforts have the potential to significantly change the way States behave in terms of their human rights obligations. The allocation of scarce resources is no exception. A key requirement to get this assertiveness and increased effectiveness in ESC rights advocacy is to bring greater clarity to the process through which resource mobilisation and allocation decisions are shaped and how they can be better targeted towards achieving human rights objectives. Therefore, it is reasonable to argue that, in order to achieve this level of clarity and assertiveness, the underlying practical issues with regard to defining ‘maximum available resources’ and progressive realisation policies should adopt a cross-disciplinary approach; in particular, including law, economics, public policy and public finance perspectives, which have direct relevance and provide insight into the mechanisms involved in these decision processes. 33 Ben Saul, David Kinley and Jacqueline Mowbray, The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Commentary, Cases, and Materials (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2014), 148.