performing less well, not better, on indicators of progress on human development.9 In other terms, the "progressive realization" clause of the Covenant, insofar as it suggests that the realization of economic, social and cultural rights should follow wealth creation rather than be seen as a condition for prosperity, embodies an economic philosophy that it is high time we challenge. Courts upholding economic, social and cultural rights would not only be acting in line with the idea that, by doing so, they are taking these rights seriously as human rights that they have a duty to enforce; they are also practicing sound economics. Enforcing economic, social and cultural rights by classic methods of enforcement is thus essential to their full realization, and it should not wait. This chapter suggests however that, in addition, courts and other human rights mechanisms could do more, by scrutinizing the budgetary choices of States -including at which levels to tax and how to set spending priorities --. It should be clear that this should not be interpreted as implying that they can refrain from doing what, minimally, can be expected from them: to protect the rights of the Covenant, using the same tools that are classic in the area of civil and political rights. But that they can and should go beyond those classic tools is what this chapter sets out to explain. II. Guidance from the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights What is meant by the duty to devote the "maximum available resources" to the progressive realization of economic, social and cultural rights, as stipulated by Article 2, paragraph 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights ? The provision has its source in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which anticipated that the realization of economic and social rights was to be achieved "through national effort and international cooperation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State" : these carefully crafted terms appear in Article 22 of the Declaration, which defines the right to social security as the first of the social rights it lists.10 The drafting history barely helps, however. When the working group of the Economic and Social Council's Commission on Human Rights prepared the document that was to be adopted as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, its members were concerned that their proposal should be acceptable to a broad range of States, holding very diverging views about the role of the State in the economy.11 Since well before World War II, the USSR had been leading an aggressive policy in favor of fast industrialization: top-down, large-scale, and ruthless in its ambition to catch up with the advanced economies of the West. At the other end of the political spectrum that was going to define the geopolitics of the Cold War for two generations, the United States was presenting itself as the champion of free enterprise and of free markets, the role of the State being limited to the provision of the economic security required for individuals and companies to be able to cope with the temporary shocks or turns of fortune, that were the inevitable price for liberty. The Declaration said nothing, therefore, about the desirable degree of interference of the State with market mechanisms, and although it did include a strong condemnation of discrimination, it was silent about the need to challenge inequality as such, when it has its source in the blind workings of the economy rather than in overt discrimination. Economic and social rights had to be realized, of course, and all delegates were eager to recognize the importance of seeing all human rights as indivisible and interdependent. But part of the grandeur of the Declaration lay in its modesty. It was meant to unite and it was meant to last. The price to pay, however, was to run the risk of irrelevance in the world of today. 9 Angus Deaton, The Great Escape. Health, wealth, and the origins of inequality (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton Univ. Press, 2013), at 114-115 (noting that in China, "the general pattern [as regards infant mortality rates] is of rapid decline until about 1970, followed by much slower decline after 1970. This is precisely the opposite of what we would expect if the fall in infant deaths had been driven by economic growth, which would be the case if the death of babies were a direct consequence of poverty. What happened in China is no mystery. When the authorities decided to focus on growth, resources were switched to making money and away from everything else, including public health and health care"). 10 GA Res. 217, UN GAOR, 3d sess., UN Doc. A/810 (1948) (Art. 22). 11 Mary Ann Glendon, A World Made New. Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (New York: Random House, 2001), at 87. 5