This is a general issue of the journal containing a variety of papers from academics in different parts of the world. The editorial group is delighted that the journal attracts papers from across the globe and is read by academics worldwide. We aim to maintain and extend this as much as we can, and continue to invite contributions to the journal from academics interested in the theory, policy, philosophy and practice of social welfare, with particular reference to the ethics and values of professional social intervention. We can always learn from ideas and practices from countries other than our own. We are conscious that growing populism in all parts of the world appeals to the xenophobic nationalists in each country, to the detriment of all kinds of minorities, and ultimately harmful also to the majority populations themselves. It is thus important to the editors and boards of the journal that this is a place where reasonable and respectful discussions can be held across borders. In this issue of the journal – the last for 2019 – we have contributions from Geneva, Switzerland, from the Middle East – Jordan; from Finland and Aotearoa New Zealand, as well as the UK, plus a joint paper by wellknown academics in Canada and the UK. Our next special issue in the New Year has been put together by academics in Israel and the USA, and we anticipate that our special issues will continue to be edited from a variety of sources. Academics interested in editing special issues relevant to the journal are welcome to make enquiries of the editors: we normally expect a written proposal to go before the board for approval, but guidance can be offered in advance. The opening paper in this issue by Francesco Laruffa is an interesting theoretical paper that discusses ‘ethical-political dilemmas in the crisis of neoliberalism’. Social welfare discourses and scholars’ concerns about them also contextualise the following papers that are mainly about frequently arising ethical issues in social work practices that are critically affected by that surrounding framework. Laruffa sees a tension between discourses of welfare that may on the one hand contribute to the democratisation of the public sphere, but may fail to influence the content of policies, remaining trapped in marginal political positions. It is argued that an approach to social investment that builds on Sen’s capability perspective, emphasising the economic benefits of social policy for promoting alternatives to welfare retrenchment, would be a promising basis for developing a post-neoliberal discourse on social welfare. Exactly how this might be done is a part of the discussion and will be of interest to readers of this journal who will have seen the collection of reviews of Sen published in the last issue of this journal. Clearly, a lot depends on how Sen’s views are to be understood and incorporated into any such project, as the reviews demonstrated both the subtlety and the limitations of various aspects of his theory. Alternatively it may be thought that Sen’s views may be coming outdated by rapidly changing circumstances that demand other more radical modes of discourse: the matter is certainly open for debate. The dilemma between policy-relevance, on the one hand, and critically engaged scholarship, on the other, remains. Replies or responses to this discussion are welcome, including both theoretical and practical arguments about the development of welfare discourse. The joint paper by Kieran and Rebekah O’Donoghue is a useful discussion of the application of ethics within social work supervision. It is a selective review of social work supervision and

中文翻译：

---

社论

这是该期刊的一般问题，其中包含来自世界各地的学者的各种论文。该编辑小组很高兴看到该期刊吸引了全球各地的论文，并为世界各地的学者所阅读。我们的目标是尽可能地保持和扩大这一范围，并继续邀请对社会福利的理论，政策，哲学和实践感兴趣的学者，特别是对职业社会干预的道德观念和价值观的学者，向该期刊投稿。我们总是可以从我们自己国家以外的国家的思想和实践中学习。我们意识到，世界各地日益增长的民粹主义吸引了每个国家的仇外民族主义者，不利于各种少数民族，并最终也对多数人口本身造成了伤害。因此，对于期刊的编辑者和董事会来说，重要的是在这里可以进行合理和尊重的讨论。在本期杂志（2019年最后一期）中，我们来自瑞士日内瓦，中东（约旦）的投稿。来自芬兰，新西兰的Aotearoa和英国，以及加拿大和英国知名学者的联合论文。以色列和美国的学者已将新年的下一个特刊汇集在一起​​，我们希望我们的特刊将继续从各种来源进行编辑。欢迎有兴趣编辑与该期刊有关的特殊问题的学者向编辑询问：我们通常希望书面提案能够提交董事会批准，但可以提前提供指导。弗朗切斯科·拉鲁法（Francesco Laruffa）在本期的开篇论文是一篇有趣的理论论文，讨论了“新自由主义危机中的伦理政治困境”。社会福利论述和学者对它们的关注也将以下论文作为背景语境，这些论文主要是关于社会工作实践中经常出现的道德问题的，这些问题受到周围环境的严重影响。拉鲁法（Laruffa）看到福利话语之间的紧张关系，一方面可能助长了公共领域的民主化，但可能无法影响政策的内容，仍然陷于边缘政治地位。有人认为，以森的能力观点为基础的社会投资方法，强调了社会政策的经济利益，以促进福利缩减的替代方案，将为发展关于社会福利的新民主主义话语提供有希望的基础。确切地讲，这是讨论的一部分，将使该期刊的读者感兴趣，他们将看到在该期刊的上一期中发表的有关Sen的评论集。显然，很大程度上取决于如何理解森的观点并将其纳入任何这样的项目中，因为这些评论表明了他理论的各个方面的微妙和局限性。另一种可能是，由于迅速变化的情况要求其他更激进的话语方式，森的观点可能已过时：此事无疑是有争议的。一方面，政策相关性与另一方面，从事批判性奖学金之间的困境仍然存在。欢迎对此讨论作出答复或回应，包括有关福利话语发展的理论和实践论证。凯兰（Kieran）和丽贝卡（Rebekah O'Donoghue）的联合论文对道德在社会工作监督中的应用进行了有益的讨论。这是对社会工作监督的选择性审查，