We revise Atkinson’s concept of a ‘participation income’ (PI), repositioning it as a form of green conditional basic income that is anchored in a capabilities-oriented eco-social policy framework. This framework combines the capability approach with an ‘ethics of care’ to re-shape the focus of social policy on individuals’ capability to ‘take care of the world’, thus shifting the emphasis from economic production to social reproduction and environmental reparation. In developing this proposal, we seek to address key questions about the feasibility of implementing PI schemes: including their administrative complexity and the criticism that a PI constitutes either an arbitrary and confusing, or invasive and stigmatising, form of basic income. To address these concerns, we argue for an enabling approach to incentivising participation whereby participation pathways are co-created with citizens on the basis of opportunities they recognise as meaningful rather than enforced through strict monitoring and sanctions.

Contemporary models of welfare capitalism have frequently been critiqued about their fit-for-purpose in provisioning for people’s basic needs including care, and longer-term ecological sustainability. The Covid-19 pandemic has also exposed the need for better institutions and a new welfare architecture. We argue a post-productivist eco-social state can deliver sustainable well-being and meet basic needs. Arguing Universal Basic Services are an essential building block and prerequisite for a de-commodified welfare state, we focus on examining the form of income support that might best complement UBS. The article develops, from the perspective of feminist arguments and the capabilities approach, a case for Participation Income. This, we argue, can be aligned with targeted policy goals, particularly reward for and redistribution of human and ecological care or reproduction and other forms of socially valued participation. It may also, in the short term, be more administratively practical and politically feasible than universal basic income.

Legislation aimed at controlling antimicrobial-resistant pathogens through the use of active surveillance cultures to screen hospitalized patients has been introduced in at least 2 US states. In response to the proposed legislation, the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) and the Association of Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC) have developed this joint position statement. Both organizations are dedicated to combating healthcare-associated infections with a wide array of methods, including the use of active surveillance cultures in appropriate circumstances. This position statement reviews the proposed legislation and the rationale for use of active surveillance cultures, examines the scientific evidence supporting the use of this strategy, and discusses a number of unresolved issues surrounding legislation mandating use of active surveillance cultures. The following 5 consensus points are offered. (1) Although reducing the burden of antimicrobial-resistant pathogens, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE), is of preeminent importance, APIC and SHEA do not support legislation to mandate use of active surveillance cultures to screen for MRSA, VRE, or other antimicrobial-resistant pathogens. (2) SHEA and APIC support the continued development, validation, and application of efficacious and cost-effective strategies for the prevention of infections caused by MRSA, VRE, and other antimicrobial-resistant and antimicrobial-susceptible pathogens. (3) APIC and SHEA welcome efforts by healthcare consumers, together with private, local, state, and federal policy makers, to focus attention on and formulate solutions for the growing problem of antimicrobial resistance and healthcare-associated infections. (4) SHEA and APIC support ongoing additional research to determine and optimize the appropriateness, utility, feasibility, and cost-effectiveness of using active surveillance cultures to screen both lower-risk and high-risk populations. (5) APIC and SHEA support stronger collaboration between state and local public health authorities and institutional infection prevention and control experts.