Search results

Popularly viewed as a humanitarian issue that transcends not only geopolitical boundaries of nationality but also sociopolitical borders of race, the ways in which transnational adoption reflects the racialization of children are often ignored. Because adoption is not a random process of family building but rather a purposive endeavor that involves the multiple dynamics of race, class, gender, sexual orientation and disability, it is important to recognize how trends in transnational adoption intersect with shifting racial structure. This paper aims to examine visas issued to orphans entering the USA from 1990‐2005, international programs offered by US adoption agencies, and juxtaposes these with policies governing adoption in sending countries to illustrate how transnational adoption mirrors these emerging racial categories.

Using the tripartite racial framework argued to characterize the shifting US racial structure, the author located adoptions in the top 20 sending countries to the USA for the past 16 years within this framework to assess how patterns of transnational adoption reflect the shifting US racial structure. To try to assess the extent to which adoptive parent “demand” intersects with agency programs and the policies of other countries, the author also performed a content analysis of an online adoption directory with 236 private adoption agencies (120 of which maintained (international adoption programs) and US Department of State data on adoption policies of the top 20 sending countries.

Transnational adoption patterns for the past 16 years lend support to the argument of a shifting racial structure and mirror the tripartite system described by Bonilla‐Silva. For the past 16 years the majority of adoptions have been either from the White or Honorary White categories whereas 20 per cent of adoptions have been from the Collective Black category. While policies of sending countries no doubt factor into which programs are offered by US private agencies, Department of State information suggests that the restrictiveness of countries’ adoption policies cannot by itself explain which countries are in the top 20. A significant part of this reciprocal process must include a focus on “demand” to explain who gets adopted. Data on transnational patterns of adoption illustrate all too clearly which children are preferred, aligning with the emerging Latin American‐like racial hierarchy in the USA.

To the author's knowledge, this application has not been attempted nor has anyone considered adoption (domestic or transnational) as another social indicator of intimacy (albeit for a relatively small segment of the population).

This article aims to focus on social structures and national and international factors as they influence international adoption. Special attention is paid to the impact of media, social welfare policies, legislation, and international monitoring groups on international adoption.

The article reviews relevant literature in sociology, social work, and the media. Much of the focus is on adoption in the USA since it has the largest number of internationally adopted children.

International adoption is becoming more common and is likely to continue to do so despite the concerns of some countries, some minority groups, and international monitoring agencies regarding trafficking in children, cultural genocide, and social justice issues related to transracial/intercultural adoption.

Adoption has generally been studied by social workers, psychologists and others concerned with its impact on the individual adoptee, birth mother and adoptive family. This article presents a sociological perspective of international adoption and considers its implications for families. The article is useful for policy makers, practitioners and others concerned with the occurrence of international adoption and its potential consequences.

Adoption literature now speaks with many voices. Federal and state agencies and local advocacy groups are enthusiastic supporters of adoptions, the basic belief being kids need homes. The bottleneck is the most conservative sector, the local agency. These are the agencies one deals with if planning to adopt a child. This brief essay attempts to give some perspective to the recent literature on adoption trends and practices. The numbers in parentheses refer to the entry numbers of titles in the bibliographic listing at the end of the article.

The first question to be addressed on this issue is what is open adoption? What follows in this article is a survey of definitions in the literature which reveals a broad spectrum of definitions of openness. Most of the definitions which follow are based on the range of practices which researchers have come across during their interviews with families who have been involved in an open adoption. Essentially, open adoption is a term which describes the continued contact between an adopted child and his/her birth parent(s) after adoption. Open adoption has also been referred to as the adoption triangle as there are three parties involved in the adoption rather than the traditional two.

Access to financing has long been identified as a stumbling block for the economic endeavors of immigrant entrepreneurs (IEs) in host countries. Yet, little is known about the internal enablers for the IEs success to overcome their financing barriers in host countries. Accordingly, the purpose of this paper is to introduce the theoretical concept of the financial ambidexterity of IEs as a potential behavioral ability some IEs develop over time to access financing in both host and coethnic contexts.

The paper uses sociopsychological lenses to introduce and discuss the term “financial ambidexterity of IEs” by synthesizing empirical evidence drawn from the different literature on immigrant entrepreneurship, biculturalism, financial literacy and cultural intelligence. This discussion is carefully embedded within the framework of the immigrant entrepreneurship literature.

The study proposes and discusses the role of bicultural identity integration, cultural intelligence and financial literacy in enabling the “financial ambidexterity of IEs.” It further defines the “financial ambidexterity of IEs” as their ability to explore and exploit financing opportunities, either simultaneously across the contexts within which they are embedded, e.g. coethnic and mainstream, or alternately in one context when barriers occur in the other.

The paper mainly contributes to the literature on immigrant entrepreneurship by suggesting an explanation for how IEs overcome financing barriers in their host countries, and why some IEs are more successful in that than other peers. Moreover, the paper attempts to advance the understanding of immigrants' entrepreneurial endeavors using a sociopsychological lens that considers cultural, cognitive and knowledge-related factors.

Intercountry adoptions (hereafter ICAs) in the USA are a form of sale of children. According to international policy, sale of children is an illicit social practice that involves improper financial gains by at least one party. Sale of children is a threat to legitimate ICA. The purpose of this paper is to analyse the policy and practice of ICAs in the USA, including pricing arrangements, demonstrate that US ICAs, which can have humanitarian aims and be legitimate forms of family development, comprise sale of children.

Internet searches and e-mail inquiries were used to obtain ICA cost data for a randomised sample of 10 per cent of the agencies in the USA that facilitate ICAs.

Cost information was obtained from only 25 per cent of the sample, suggesting lack of transparency in and available information about monetary costs of US ICAs. A range of US$12,000 to $40,000 suggests that US ICAs are expensive and costs vary. Large, undisclosed fees in the form of “required donations”, agency fees, and extensive foreign travel requirements imply third party economic gains are made through US ICA transactions.

US ICA agencies should disclose costs and employ transparent practices. US policies regulating ICAs should be clarified and strengthened. The US Government should ratify, implement, and enforce major children’s rights international policy standards.

International demand for adopted children may encourage child trafficking, child laundering, and kidnapping for profit (see Smolin, 2005), putting children, adoptive families, and birth communities at risk of breaches of basic human rights.

No study has offered systematic analysis of monetary costs of US ICAs and linked this analysis to policy and legitimacy of social practices.

The purpose of this paper is to identify the factors influencing the scale and nature of intercountry adoption (ICA) between the People’s Republic of China and the USA, and to describe the significance and contribution of each to ICA processes.

A documentary data analysis approach based upon the quantitative grounded theory: first, interpreting available data, and second, conducting a thematic analysis of the literature to generate a theory of key factors.

The results showed that changes in policies, ethical narratives and ideological shifts (principally the rise of nationalism) were highly influential in determining the scale and type of ICAs in successive years.

This paper concluded that China: US ICA is likely to continue only in small numbers with older and special needs children. However, China: US adoptions provide some examples of “best practice”. Understanding the interplay of factors explored theoretically in this study may guide future ICA arrangements between other country pairs.

Although a range of data has been collected on China: US ICA over a number of years, no systematic attempt has been made to link changes in those data to changes in the legal, social or cultural climate in which such adoptions take place. As well as providing new insights into the dynamics of ICA, the paper develops an original method which could be applied to parallel arrangements between other countries.

Out‐of‐home care has been a subject for policy debate since child welfare policies were first developed. Too often the debate is marked by ill‐informed sound‐bites linking “care” with negative descriptors such as “drift” or “languish”. The purpose of this paper is to urge a more nuanced understanding informed by the large volume of research from across jurisdictional boundaries.

The historical, cultural and political contexts in which studies on children's out‐of‐home care have been conducted are reviewed, since these impact on the characteristics of the children, the aims of the care service in any particular jurisdiction, and the outcomes for those entering care. The paper also scopes the large volume of English language descriptive and process research (and the smaller number of outcome studies) on the different placement options.

The outcomes of out‐of‐home care are different for different groups of children, and care needs to be taken not to over‐simplify the evidence about processes and outcomes. The generally negative view of the potential of out‐of‐home care is not based on evidence.

The authors, from their North American and UK/European perspectives, provide an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses, both of the available research and of the care services themselves.