This article draws on findings of an international study of social workers’ ethical challenges during COVID-19, based on 607 responses to a qualitative survey. Ethical challenges included the following: maintaining trust, privacy, dignity and service user autonomy in remote relationships; allocating limited resources; balancing rights and needs of different parties; deciding whether to break or bend policies in the interests of service users; and handling emotions and ensuring care of self and colleagues. The article considers regional contrasts, the ‘ethical logistics’ of complex decision-making, the impact of societal inequities, and lessons for social workers and professional practice around the globe.

This study used the contracting projects of a district branch of the Women's Federation in Guangzhou as case examples to demonstrate both the Chinese state's contractual controls over social work organisations (SWOs) and the pragmatic response strategies of SWOs and professionals. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with seventeen participants, including local officials of the Women's Federation and social workers from contracted SWOs. It was found that with the ultimate goal of consolidating the legitimacy of the Communist Party of China, the Women's Federation's dual role in politics and service provision had led to normative, managerial, technical and relational controls over SWOs. SWOs and professionals were generally submissive to these controls, but they employed diverse coping strategies, including compliance, bargaining, transformation and investment in personal relationships. The interactions within the contractual relationship created a pragmatic professionalism that embraced dominant political ideologies, employed de-politicising techniques, and personally depended on individual officials.

No abstract

No abstract

The Chinese government has made increasing use of the strategy of contracting out social services to non-governmental social work organisations (SWOs) to improve its capacity for social governance. This institutional arrangement provides a space where SWOs are not only involved in the provision of welfare services but also have opportunities to influence policy-making. Based on a qualitative study conducted in Shenzhen and Nanjing, this article shows how SWOs in China engage in depoliticised policy practice, characterised by SWOs’ compliance with the state’s agenda, adoption of nonconfrontational tactics and exertion of professional influence based on expertise. As a result, SWOs have been repoliticised as an arm of the state rather than independent and autonomous policy advocates.