HRMI’s economic and social rights scores are constructed from publicly available data published by international organisations such as UNESCO, the FAO, the OECD, and the Luxembourg Income Study. Many of the indicators HRMI uses to assess the different economic and social rights are the exact same indicators used to assess the SDG targets (as shown in Table 1 at the bottom of this article).

To illustrate, let’s look at Lesotho’s economic and social rights scores.

The screenshots below, from HRMI’s online Rights Tracker, show Lesotho’s performance measured against two different benchmarks: first, the ‘income adjusted’ benchmark, then the ‘global best’ benchmark.

The income adjusted benchmark, drawn from the award-winning SERF Index methodology, evaluates each country’s performance relative to the best outcomes other countries have achieved at that country’s per capita income level. The global best benchmark evaluates performance compared to the best results in the world, disregarding income constraints.

Lesotho’s scores on the income adjusted benchmark, above, show how effectively it is using its current resources to achieve that right or goal. HRMI’s scores on this benchmark measure the progressive realisation of rights, and show whether countries are meeting their obligations to devote the maximum of their available resources to achieving good rights outcomes for their people.

In the case of Lesotho, which has a very low GDP per capita, we can see above that it is using its (meager) available resources best with respect to realising people’s right to health. Our methodology takes income into account, so every country should be able to get near 100%. However, for the right to housing, Lesotho’s very low score suggests that even with its low level of resources, it could achieve a lot more for people.

By contrast, the global best benchmark doesn’t consider income constraints, and makes it clear how far away full enjoyment of rights is for the people of Lesotho.

The screenshot below shows Lesotho’s scores using the global best benchmark. This compares Lesotho’s performance with the best outcomes of other countries at any income level, including the wealthiest countries in the world. The 100% benchmark represents the maximum enjoyment level of each right that is feasible given current knowledge.

The difference in the benchmarks can give us insight into the level of resources that would be required to enable the country concerned to fully realise the right or goal concerned.

When we compare Lesotho’s health achievements with what’s possible in the richest countries, we see that there is a large gap between their current performance and what they could aspire to if they had more resources.

This shows the role that income constraints are playing in preventing people in Lesotho from enjoying their right to health.

Now consider Myanmar’s right to food score of 69.6% (income adjusted score) and 66.0% (global best score). The Rights Tracker screenshot below shows the global best score. The dotted line near the 100% mark shows the target Myanmar could be expected to reach when its income is taken into account.

There isn’t much difference between what we expect Myanmar’s government could achieve at its level of income, and what it could achieve if it had all the resources it needed. The message to leaders in Myanmar is that resources are not holding it back very much – there are other factors, probably within its control, that are stopping it from realising people’s rights.

For Myanmar, the conclusion is that by using its available resources more effectively, and reaching its income adjusted target, it would also be close to the global best – all without requiring additional resources.

HRMI’s database is freely available on our Rights Tracker. Country progress in meeting the SDGs concordant with HRMI’s ESR indicators can readily be tracked using either the income adjusted or global best standard over the past decade.

To provide an example of progress over time, the graph below shows progress on one indicator relevant to SDG 4: Quality Education. Target 4.1 is focused on ensuring all children have access to secondary school:

by 2030 ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and effective learning outcomes.

This chart shows that although Myanmar has made considerable progress, the fact that its score remains well below 100% tells us that much more could be done, even at its current per capita income level.