The Silent Migration revisited

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp;

The “quiet migration” in the new millennium:<= /p>

tren= ds in intercountry adoption 1998-2003

Paper presented at the 8^th= Global Conference

Man= ila, August 10-12 August 2005=

Peter Selman<= /b>

Reader in Social Policy

Univers= ity of Newcastle upon T= yne

UNITED = KINGDOM

The author can be contacted at;

School= of Geography, Politics & Sociology, University of Newca= stle,

Cl= aremont Bridge level 5

Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU,

ENGLAND. Tel +44 191 222 7538;

Fax +44 191 222 7497;&n= bsp;

e-mail p.f.selman@ncl.ac.uk

or         pfselman@yahoo.co.uk
ICA in States of origin will be estimat= ed using data from these 20 states. The paper updates a conference presentation to the European Population Association meeting in Helsinki in 2001 and later published in Population Research & Policy Review<= /i> (Selman 2000; 2001; 2002). =

The analysis shows a marked increase in the global number of intercountry adopt= ions over the five years, with an estimated minimum of 40,000 officially recorded adoptions in the 20 States by 2003, which represents an increase o= f 30 per cent since 1998. Recent growth is most evident in the number of children adopted from China and= Russia and the number going to Spain and the United States. However, standardisation against number of births indicates that in 2003 the receivi= ng States with the highest “rates” are to be found in Scandinavia = and Spain, while the highest rates for States = of origin are in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, closely followed = by South Korea and Guatemala. The paper will include an explorat= ion of the social and demographic characteristics of those countries sending and receiving most children.

References:

=

&mmiddot;         Selma= n P (2000) ̶= 0;The demography of intercountry adoption”= in P. Selman (ed) Intercountry Adoption: developments, trends and perspectives. London: BAAF.

&mmiddot;         Selman P (2001) ̶= 0;Intercountry Adoption in the new millennium: the ‘quiet migration’ revisited”, paper presented at European Population conference, = Helsinki, Finland, May 2001: - an updated version of this paper is available from the author by e-mailing pfselman@yahoo.co.uk =

=

Selman P. (2002) = “Intercountry Adoption i= n the new millennium: the ‘quiet migration’ revisited” Population Research & Policy Review 21: 2= 05-225

Introduction<= /b>

This paper upd= ates a conference presentation to the European Population Association meeting in Helsinki in 2001, which was later published in Population Research & Policy Review<= /i> (Selman 2001; 2002).

In that paper I noted that child adoption was not usually seen as a matter of concern for demographers,̶= 1; but rather an issue of primary interest to social workers, lawyers and psychologists and of secondary interest to sociologists and anthropologists” (Selman 2002 p 205), two exceptions being articles in the International Migration = Review by Lovelock (2000) and Weil (1984), from whose pap= er I took the term “the quiet migration” to refer to internat= ional adoption. The paper’s analysis followed earlier work by Kane (1992) on intercountry adoption in the 1980s.

Subsequent interest in the paper has encourage= d me to take the opportunity of an invitation to this excellent conference in yo= ur beautiful country to present for the first time my latest work on trends in intercountry adoption from 1998 to 2003.

The paper will follow a similar structure to t= hat used in the earlier presentation but all the tables are new or updated and = are discussed in the context of developments in intercountry adoption over the = last five years. The paper should ideally be read alongside the article in Po= pulation Research & Policy Review<= /i>.

A more detailed and extensive set of tables wi= ll be published by the Unive= rsity of Newcastle later = this year as:

Selman P (2005)   Trends in Intercountry Adoption 1998-2003: a review of recent statistics for receiving States, Adop= tion Working Paper 1, School of    Geography, Politics & Sociology, University of Newcastle.

Electronic copies of the paper (which is still being revised) are available from the author by e-mailing pfselman@yahoo.= co.uk or p.f.selman@ncl.ac.uk

Towards a demography of interco= untry adoption

In his 1984 article, Weil argued that many aspects of intercou= ntry adoption were not well understood and concluded that :

“To answer questions such as = those listed above requires far more data be

collected on a systematic worldwide basis.= The total volume of foreign

adoptees, how this number has changed over= time, precisely what countries

are linked in the flows of children….” (Weil= 1984 pp 289-90)

&= nbsp;

The aim of this paper is to present the findings of my recent attempt to provide new estimates of the number of foreign adoptees between = 1998 and 2003 (Selman 2005a), to assess the changes over these six years and to explore which countries have been linked in the flows of children. I shall = show that my prediction in an earlier article (Selman 2002) that the numbers “could potentially grow in the first decades of the next century̶= 1; has been fulfilled.

.

Today Intercountry Adoption (ICA) is a phenomenon involving over 40,000 children a year moving between over a hundred countries. If we are to understand this phenomenon, = it is important not only to be able to give an accurate picture of the number = of ICAs taking place and of changes in that number over time, but also to iden= tify those countries most involved.

=

The paper will present an estimate = of the number of intercountry adoptions worldwide, using data recorded by 20 recei= ving States. The differing incidence of ICA in States of origin will be estimated using data from these 20 States. I sh= all then consider the implications of these figures.

=

A more technical discussion of the problems of data collection and analysis will be undertaken in a paper to be presented next month at the First Global Research Conference on Adoption in= Copenhagen (Selma= n 2005b)

The growth of intercountry adop= tion since 1990

Most estimates of global numbers in the early 1990s suggested an annual total of between 15,000 and 20,000 (e.g. Duncan 1993; Kane = 1993; Lovelock 2000; NAIC 1997). Th= e best picture of intercountry adoption (ICA) worldwide in the 1980s is that provided by Kane (1993).    Using data from 14 countries,   she calculat= es the

minimum number of Intercountry adoptions betwee= n 1980 and 1989 at just over 162,000 - an average of more than 16,000 a year and estimates the actu= al total for the decade (allowing for missing data) as lying between 170,000 a= nd 180,000 - an average of 17-18,000 per annum. UNICEF (1999) made an estimate of the number of adoptions to seven major receiving states (USA; Franc= e; Italy; Canada: Sw= eden; Switzerland and the Netherlands) in the period 1993-1997, which showed a sharp rise in numbers over this period from 16,027 to 23,199.

=

My own estimate f= or 1998 (Selman 2002) was that there were by then over 30,000 intercountry adoptions worldwide and my current work (Selman 2005a) suggests that by 2003 this number had risen to over 40,000.

=

Table 1 below show the estimates for the growth in total number of ICAs over the 15 years from 1988 to 2003 using the 14 cou= ntries covered in Kane’s analysis show a substantial increase in overseas adoption - from 19,327 in 1988 to&nb= sp; 30,841 in 1998, and 39= ,696 in 2003.   This gives a v= ery different picture from Altstein’s prediction - made in the aftermath of the Romanian influx, which he saw as temporary, that …“..as a long-term world-wide phenomenon whereby non-white chil= dren from poor nations are transferred to families in rich, white nations ICA appears to be declining” (Altstein & Simon&nbs= p; 1991) . I shall look l= ater at why this prediction proved wrong.

=

Table 2 shows in detail the growth in numbers for 20 receiving States from 1998 to 2003 and indicates a minimum of 40, 791 adoptions, an increase of nearly 30 per cent over the six years

=

Table 1:         &= nbsp;          Receiving States with highest number of intercountry adoptions 1980 - 2003 by r= ank in 1998 - the 14 countries reviewed by Kane

            =

Country

2003

2001

1998

1993-7 (average)

1988

1980-89

(average

US=

France

Italy

Canada¹

Spain²

Sweden

Germany³

Netherlands

Switzerland

Norway

Denmark

Belgium⁴

Australia

Finland

21,616

3,995

2,772

2,181

3,951

1,046

674

1,154

366

714

522

281

278

238

19,237

3,094

1,797

1,874

3,428

1,044

798

1122

457

713

631

255

289

218

15, 774

3,777

2,233

2,222

1,487

928

922

825

686

643

624

310

245

181

10,070

3,216

2,047

1,934

784

906

836

640

761

531

510

(183⁾⁵

247

134

9,120

2,441

2,078

232¹

93²

1,074

875³⁼

577

492

566

523

662

516

78=

7,761

1,850

1,006

109¹

19²

189²

1,579

1,153

616

464

582

544

356

40=

Total for 14

states

39,696

34,870

&n= bsp;

30,801

22,799

19,327

&n= bsp;

16,268

Sources:   Kane (1993); Lehland (2000); Selman (2002 and 2005)         =                      =

1.      For 1980-89, Canadian figures are for Quebec only (Kane 1993)

2.      Underestimate due to incomplete data (Kane 1993)

3.      Estimate based on 4 northern lander (Kane 1993)

4.      For 1998- 2003 figures are French agencies + 1 “EurAdopt” Dutch agency

5.      For 1993-7 Belgian figures are for EurAdopt agencies onl= y

This table updates (with corrections) previous tables published by the author (Selman 2000, 2001), comparing recent data w= ith the estimates from earlier demographic work ( Kane 1993)

T= able 2          = Number of intercountry adoptions in twenty Receiving     States: 1998 - 2003    - by rank in 1998<= /b>

= ;

Country

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

US

France

Italy

Canada

Spain

Sweden

Germany=

Netherlands=

Switzerland

Norway

Denmark

= N Zealand<= /span>

UK

Australia

Ireland

Finland

Luxembourg

15, 774

3,777

2,233

2,222

1,487
928

922

825

686

643

624

371

258
245

147

181

60

16,363

3,597

2,177

2,019

2,006

1,019

977

993

582

589

697

356

312

244

214

149

67

17,718

2,971

346*

1,866

3,062

981

854

1193

478

589

716

290

351

301

225

198

59

19,237

3,094

2,225

1,874

3,428

1,044

798

1122

457

713

631

358

326

289

179

218

61

20,099

3,551

2,225

1,891

3,625

1,107

884

1,130

474

747

609

263

285

294

336

246

49

21,616

3,995

2,772

2,181

3,951

1,046

674

1,154

366

714

522

278

300

278

341

238

54

Sub-total

(17 states)

31,383

32,339

32,198

35,626

37,850

40,480

<= o:p>

Countries with incomplete data

Belgium =3D for French community and one EurAdopt Dutch agency

(EurAdopt Agencies only)

<= o:p>

Belgium

Cyprus

Iceland

310

(12)

(15)
⁼

282

(16)

(14)

297

(10)

(24)

255

(10)

(17)

269

(3)

(19)

281

(3)

(30)

TOTAL

(20 states)

&n= bsp;

31,720<= o:p>

&n= bsp;

32,650<= o:p>

&n= bsp;

32,527<= o:p>

&n= bsp;

35,903<= o:p>

&n= bsp;

38,139<= o:p>

&n= bsp;

40,791<= o:p>

&n= bsp;

&nb= sp;

* 2 months&nb= sp; 16/11/2000 - 31/12/2000

Source: Sel= man P (2005) Trends in Intercountry Adoption 1998-2003: a review of recent statistics for receiving States. Adoption Working Paper 1, School of Geography<= /st1:PlaceName>, Politics and Sociology, Univer= sity of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK - with acknowledgement to Ketil Lehland for his advive and help in compiling the data.

Which countries receive most children?

Table 1 shows that for the last 20 years, the Un= ited States has been the largest recipient of children for adoption, but that Canada, France, Italy, and Spain also receive substantial numbers of children - the total for t= hese 4 countries in 2003 being 10,000+ - more than half the number going to the = USA, . Between 1998 and 2003 the r= ise has been particularly dramatic in Spain, where recorded interco= untry adoptions doubled between 1998 and 2000 and reached over 4,000 by 2004.

=

Table 3 below reminds us that the number of intercountry adoptions can fall as well as rise and that for some European states - notably Sweden and the Netherlands<= /st1:country-region> - the current level is well below that fouund in the early 1980s, despite a = new rise from the late 1990s.

=

Table 3:         Annual Number of International Adoptions: USA, Sweden,

Netherlands and Norway: selected years 1970 - 1998

=

Country

v

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

USA

= ;

2,409=

= ;

5,633=

= ;

5,139=

= ;

9,285=

= ;

7,093=

= ;

9,679=

= ;

17,718

= ;

21,616

Sweden

= ;

1,150=

= ;

1,517=

= ;

1,704=

= ;

1,560=

= ;

965

= ;

895

= ;

981

= ;

1,046=

Netherla= nds

= ;

192

= ;

1,018=

= ;

1,594=

= ;

1,138=

= ;

830

= ;

661

= ;

1,193=

= ;

1,154=

Norway

= ;

115

= ;

397

= ;

384

= ;

507

= ;

500

= ;

488

= ;

589

= ;

714

Standardisation of ICA against population or birth levels = in receiving States

In my previous pa= pers I pointed out that, if we want to compare the levels of intercountry adopti= on in either sending or receiving countries, it is essential to develop some f= orm of standardisation as would be routine for any other demographic event. The simplest standardisation is to relate adoptions to the population size - e.g.as a Crude (Intercountry) Adoption Rate per 100,000 population.   This has be= en used to make comparisons between receiving states (Selman 1989 and 2002; Pilotti 1990) and shows Sweden as having a much higher rate than the United States.

=

An alternative is= to relate the adoptions to the number of births (Andersson 1986, Kane 1993 ). I ha= ve called this an Adoption Ratio (= Selman 1998 ), defining this as the number of adoptions per 1,000 live births. Kane refers to a “rate of adoption” per 100 births. Adoptions are seen as in some sense the equivalent to acquiring a child through birth (Andersson 1986). Because of = the similarity of demographic characteristics (e.g age-structure and birth rate= s), the relativities are the similar whichever measure is used for receiving states. In 2003 the adoption ratio in Spain was 10.4, which indicat= es a ratio of one intercountry ado= ption for every 100 live births. In Sweden in 1978 the ratio was 17.4 per 1,000 - nearly two adoptions for every 100 live births - or equivalen= t to a rise of almost 0.2 in the c= rude birth rate.

Table 4 below contrasts the = adoption ratios for 1998 and 2003 with those provided by Kane for 1989. Standardisation against births sho= ws that in 2003 the level of intercountry adoption was substantially higher in= Norway, Sw= eden and Spain than in the = USA, de= spite the growth in numbers in the latter country. In most cases the level is higher = than in 1998 and 1989.

Table 4:         = Intercountry adoptions per 1,000 live births; 1989 to 2003

Selected Receiving Countries ¹

=

Adoption Ratio (per 1,000 live births) for 15 receiving States= , 1989 - 2003 in order of ratio of intercountry adoptions to live births in 2003:

Country

=

Number of Adoptions¹<= /p>

2003

=

Adoptions per

1,000 births¹

2003

Number of

Adoptions²

1998

Adoptions

per

1,000 births

1998²

Adoptions

per

1,000 births

1989 ³

Norway

714

13.5

643

11.2

11.0

Sweden

1,046

11.4

928

10.8

9.4

Spain

3,951

10.4

1,497

4.2

N/A

Luxembourg

51

10.2

60

12.0

N/A

Denmark

523

8.4

624

9.9

8.5

Canada

2,181

6.8

2,222

6.5

2.7**

Switzerland

366<= sup>

6.0

686

8.6

6.7

Ireland

341

6.0

147

2.8

N/A

Netherlands

1,154

5.9

825

4.6

3.7

Italy

2,772

5.5

2,233

4.4

3.8

France

3,995

5.2

3,777

5.3

3.0

USA

21,616

5.1

15,774

4.2

2.0

Finland

238

4.3

181

3.2

2.0

Australia

278

1.2

245

1.0

1.4

UK

300

0.5

258

0.4

N/A

1.   &n= bsp;       = ;      Source:   Selman (2005) &n= bsp;            = ;            =

2.   &n= bsp;             Source:<= span style=3D'font-family:Arial;mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'>   Selman (2002) &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;           **<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Quebec Only

3.            = ;      Source:   Kane (1993)<= span style=3D'font-family:Arial'>

In the early post-war = years the main countries of origin were those defeated in the war - Greece, It= aly, Germany and Japan, but from the mid 1950s the main sou= rce of children to the United States became Korea, which accounted for the largest number in total over the period 1948-62. Between 1963 and 1975, Korea b= ecame even more dominant, accounting for nearly 15,000 out of a total of 34,568. = The next six years (1976-1981) saw 19,283 children moving from Korea to the United States out of a total = of 35,229.

            During this later period, there were also increasing numbers of children going to = the United States from Latin American countries such as Ecuador and Colombia, a= nd from other Asian countries including the Philippines and India. The number = of children from Europe fell sharply.

    =         This set the patt= ern for the 1980s, where Kane (1993) identified Korea, Colombia and India as the major sending countries for t= he 14 receiving States ahe reviewed, confirming the picture given by Pilotti (199= 0) using data from the United States, Sweden and Norway.= For a short period in the early 19= 90s Romania= became the largest single source of children for international adoption (Defence f= or Children International, 1991).

        &= nbsp;   Because of the difficulties involved in obtaining comparative data from many states= of origin, I have followed Pilotti (1990) and Kane (1993) in using data gather= ed by receiving States to provide an estimate of the relative levels of intercountry adoption in States of origin. The accuracy of such estimates d= epends on the number of receiving States used and whether any major sources of children are omitted. The estimates for 2003 in Table 6 below are based on = 20 receiving States which account for the vast majority of children moving for intercountry adoption. The ra= nking for 1995 and 1998 should be treated with caution as they are based on data = from only 10 countries (not including Italy or Spain) and are over-influenced by adoptions to the USA. Nevertheless the table does indica= te a dramatic shift in the source of children with China and Russia dominating f= rom 1995 with four of Kane’s top ten countries - Sri Lanka, Chile, Peru, and El Salvador, - no longer featuri= ng in the lists for 1995 - and two othe= rs - the Philippines and Brazil - leaving the “top ten”= ; by 1998 and 2003 respectively.

Table 5    = ; Countries sending most children for ICA<= /st1:place>; 1989 - 2003

Major Sending Countries - by number of children: 1980-2003

1980-89¹=

1995²

Rank by number sent

1998²

2003³

=

Korea

India

Colombia

Brazil

Sri Lanka

=

Chile

Philippines

Guatemala

Peru

El Salvador

=

China

Korea

Russia

Vietnam

Colombia

=

India

Brazil

Guatemala

Romania

Philippines

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

=

Russia=

China=

Vietnam=

Korea

Colombia

Guatemala=

India=

Romania=

Brazil=

E= thiopia=

=

China

Russia=

Guatemala=

Korea

Ukraine

Colombia=

India

Haiti=

Bulgaria

Vietnam

1            =     Source:   Ka= ne (1993)          - children sent t= o 13 receiving States

2.            =    Source:   Selman (2002) &n= bsp;    - children sent to 10 receiving States

3.            =    Source:   Selman (2005) &n= bsp;    - children sent to 20 receiving States

**         = Adoptions to 10 receiving countries [USA, Franc= e, Germany, Sweden, Ne= therlands, Norway, Denmark, A= ustralia, UK and Ireland] - =3D c 75-80 per ce= nt of ICAs

=

The annual number= of adoptions from China t= o the United States alone rose from 61 in 1991 to 4,206 in 1998 and 6,859 in 2003; the number from Russia rose from 324 in 1992 = to 4,491 in 1998 and 5,209 in 2003. By 2003 these two countries dominate intercountry adoption, accounting for nea= rly half of all adoptions worldwide and 56 per cent of adoptions to the United States. Korea and = Guatemala are much more significant sources of children for the United States than for countries of Europe.

=

Table 6

&= nbsp;

10 States of Origin sending most children for adoption in 2003 :Adoptions to 20 States worldwide; 16 European States; and the USA

Worldwide

(20 states)

Europe

(16 states)

UNITED STATES

2003

Country

Number of

Adoptions

Country

Number of

Adoptions

Country

Number of

Adoptions

China<= o:p>

11= ,181

<= st1:country-region w:st=3D"on">China

3,156

China<= /st1:place>

6,= 859

Russia<= o:p>

7,= 632

<= st1:country-region w:st=3D"on">Russia

2,294

Russia

5,= 209

<= st1:country-region w:st=3D"on">Guatemala

2,656

Colombia

1,401

Guatemala

2,= 328

<= st1:place w:st=3D"on">S Korea

2,306

Ukraine

1,227

= S Korea

1,= 790

<= st1:country-region w:st=3D"on">Ukraine

1,951

Bulgaria

741

Kazakhstan

82= 5

<= st1:country-region w:st=3D"on">Colombia

1,718

Haiti

652

Ukraine

70= 2

<= st1:country-region w:st=3D"on">India

1,106

Ethiopia

593

India

47= 2

<= st1:country-region w:st=3D"on">Haiti

1,051

India

515

Vietnam

38= 2

<= st1:country-region w:st=3D"on">Bulgaria

939

Vietnam

459

Colombia

27= 2

<= st1:country-region w:st=3D"on">Vietnam

889

Brazil

452

Haiti

250

From all countries

&= nbsp;

40,791=

&= nbsp;

From all countries

=

16,438=

From all countries

&= nbsp;

21,616=

<= /span>

Source<= span lang=3DEN-GB style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%'>: Selman P (2005) Trends in Intercountry Adoption 1998-2003: a review of recent statistics for receiving States. Adoption Working Paper 1, School of Geography<= /st1:PlaceName>, Politics and Sociology, Univer= sity of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

=

The rise and fall of adoption numbers

&= nbsp;

In my previous pa= per (Selman 2002) I suggested a number of reasons for a reduction in numbers of ICAs from particular States of origin

=

·         Crisis countries where the social/econo= mic situation has transformed e.g. Greece and Germany

·         Countries which have moved to domestic adoption - e.g. Sri Lanka, Brazil and India a= ll have policies leading in this direction, which may already have significantly reduced levels of intercountry adoption.

·         Suspension of adoption by either side - e.g. Paraguay (or Romania temporarily in the mid-nineties). - often = linked to previous factors<= /span>

=

= The last five years have seen few major reductions, but by 2003 Romanian adoptions w= ere falling and in 2005 the government, under pressure from the EU, ended all adoptions by non-relatives. From 2003 an increasing number of receiving Sta= tes suspended adoptions from Cambodia in the light of evidence of widespread abuses.

Standardised rates for states of origin<= /h2>
&= nbsp;

&= nbsp;

As with receiving states Standardisation against births (an ad= option ratio), enables the level of adoption in different States of origin to be explored. India and = China, the two countries with= the highest population and largest number of births in the world, are found to = have relatively low ratios (Table 7). Other countries with large populations with low ratios include the Philippines and Vietnam. Of the largest countries only Russia and Guatemala have rat= ios over 5.0 ( nearly 10 times the ratio for Ch= ina and 100 times the ratio for India.

But for other countries sending fewer children in total - e.g. Bulgaria, Cambodia and Kazakhstan= , the ratios are relatively high.

Table 7: Adoption Ratio (per 1,000 Live Bir= ths) in States of Origin 2003

Adoptions to 20 receiving s= tates

<= o:p>

C= ountry

<= o:p>

N= umber of

A= doptions

2= 003

A= doption Ratio

(= per 1,000 live births)

2= 003

Bulgaria

939

15.1

Guatemala

2,656

6.3

Russia<= o:p>

7,632

6= .2

Kazhakstan

853

5.6

Ukraine

1,951

4.8

Cambodia

286

4.6

Haiti

1,051

4.2

S Korea

2,306

4.1

Belarus

633

2.5

Romania

409

1.8

Colombia

1,718

1.8

Poland

343

0.9

China<= o:p>

11,181

0= .6

Vietnam

889

0.54

Philippines

388

0.54

Madagascar

375

0.52

India

1,106

0.04

Source: Sel= man P (2005) Trends in Intercountry Adoption 1998-2003: a review of recent statistics for receiving States. Adoption Working Paper 1, School of Geography<= /st1:PlaceName>, Politics and Sociology, Univer= sity of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

= This measure allows some comparison with the similar measure for 1989 calculated by Kane (1993). This was atte= mpted in my previous paper (Selman 2002) where ratios for 1998 and 1989 were compared. In 1989 the highest ratios included Chile (3.0), Sri Lanka (1.0)= and El Salvador (1.0), with the average annual number of adoptions (from 1980-1989) 524, 862 and 218 respectively. In 1998 none of these countries had more than 200 adoptions. Adoptions to Paraguay (ratio of 2.0 in 1989) had virtually ceased. In 1989, the five countries with t= he highest level of ICA standardised against births, were (in descending order) Korea, Chile, Colombia, = Paraguay and Haiti. By 2003 none featured in the top 5 countries, although Korea and = Haiti were in the top 10.

The standardised measures also offer insight into the potential scale of intercountry adopti= on. If China had the same = level of ICA (measured by an adoption ratio) as = Bulgaria, the number of children moving would rise to nearly 300,000! Even with the lower ratio of Russia, the numbers would increase tenfold to over 100,000, more than twice the cur= rent estimated world total.

=

Demographic influences on intercountry adoption

=

The most commonly cited “causes” of = ICA are the crises of war, famine and disease

which make it impossible for poor countries to provide for all their children. ICA

continues to be largely a move of children from poor to rich countries (Selman

1998). A Malthusi= an interpretation would see these crises as demographic in origin

but it appears th= at the major sources have not been the poorest or highest
birth rate countr= ies. States of origin sending most children or with the highest adoption ratios<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> are not all high birth rate countr= ies facing Malthusian population growth, but include countries with total ferti= lity rates below that of the major receiving states (see Tables 8 and 9). Intercountry adoption continues lo= ng after the “crisis that initiated the practice and increasingly it is = the demand for children that is they key factor in growth.

Table 8           &= nbsp;    Social and Demographic Characteristics of 5 major=       =             &nb= sp;         &= nbsp; receiving States in 2003

-         &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;

Adoptions

Incom= e

Fertility

Mortality

Receiv= ing States

Childr= en * adopted from abroad in 2003

Per Ca= pita GNP [USD]

Total Fertility Rate

Infant Mortality Rate

United States<= /o:p>

&= nbsp;

21,616

37,610

2.1

7

France<= /o:p>

&= nbsp;

3,995

24,770

1.9

4

Spain<= /o:p>

&= nbsp;

3,951

16,990

1.2

4

Italy<= /o:p>

&= nbsp;

2,772

21,560

1.2

4

Canada<= /o:p>

&= nbsp;

2,222

23,930

1.5

5

Table 8

Social and Demographic Characteristics of States of Origin sending most children to those countries (and all countries) - UNICEF 2005

States of Origin

v

Children sent f= or adoption to the   5 cou= ntries

Total sent on 2= 003 to

20 countries

Per Capita GNI = [USD]

Total Fertility= Rate

Infant Mortalit= y Rate

China=

9,370

11,181

1,= 100

1.= 8

30=

Russia

7,171

7,632

2,= 610

1.= 1

16=

Guatemala

2,591

2,656

1,= 910

4.= 4

35=

Korea=

1,909

2,306

12= ,030

1.= 4

5<= /span>

Ukraine<= b>

1,850

1,951

97= 0

1.= 2

15=

Colombia=

1,143

1,718

1,= 810

2.= 6

18=

India=

766

1,106

53= 0

3.= 0

63=

Haiti=

565

1,051

38= 0

3.= 9

76=

Bulgaria=

697

939<= /span>

2,= 130

1.= 1

14=

Vietnam<= b>

739

889<= /span>

48= 0

2.= 3

19=

PHILIPPINES

289

388

=

1,020<= /p>

=

3.1

=

27

&= nbsp;

The economic disparities in the per capita GNI are of course vast; $16-38,000 for the receiving countries; less than $3,000 for all the sending countries other t= han Korea ($12,030). Similarly, the differences in infant mortality are substantial: 4 -7 for the receiving sta= tes; up to 76 per 1,000 for the States of origin. However, it must be noted that= of the eleven countries listed only two had a GNP less than $500 (with none be= low $300) in a year (2003) in which UNICEF’s State of the World’s Children gives the average GNP for the fifty least developed nations as $256.

.

Intercountry adoption from the viewpoint of States of origin

In my earlier paper (Selman 2002) I noted that three “sending” countries had dominated the story of intercountry adoption in the 1990s: Romania, China and Russia and that all three countri= es had experienced particular demographic pressures to which intercountry adop= tion had seemed to offer a relevant - if minor and inappropriate - respons= e. The issues raised still apply; the problem of China “exporting” girl babies when the shortage of marriageable women= is increasingly recognised; the paradox of Rom= ania and Russia sending children when their birth rates are so low. In all three countries ICA had been of significance only from the 1990s but today China and = Russia are the major sources of children today, accounting for 45 % of all adoptio= ns to the 20 countries in my study, while Romania has called a halt to intercountry adoption.

In this paper I want to look instead at two States of origin - = South Korea and India - which have a longer history of sending cchildren for intercountry adoption - <and two States of origin -<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Ca= mbodia and Guatemala - where the issue of child trafficking hass led to suspension of adoptions by some receiving States. In all four cases recent trends in intercountry adop= tion will be considered.

A Tale of Two Countries

Korea and India have been involved in intercountry adopt= ion for many decades, were the top two countries in terms of numbers in the 198= 0s and continue to be amongst the top ten in 2003 (see Table 5); were the most important source of children in the 1980s; and continue to feature in the top 10 States of orig= in in 2003. The aim is to look at their experience over the past 15 years.&n= bsp; Table 9 below gives details of in-country and inter-coun= try adoptions in India and= Korea f= rom 1969 to 2004, utilising data provided by the countries themselves.

Table 9: <= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>   Intercountry and Incountry Adoptions:

India and Korea 1989 to 2004=

INDIA

Adoptions

KOREA

Adoptions

YEAR

Intercountry

In-country

Intercountry

In-country

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

1,213

1,272

1,190

1,007

1,134

1,128

1,236

990

1,026

1,406

1,293

1,364

1,298

1,066

1,024

1,021

757

1,075

936

1,293

1,382

1,409

1,424

1,623

1,330

1,746

  &= nbsp;         1,558

1,890

1,960

2,014

1,949

1,707

4,191

2,962

2,197

2,045

2,290

2,262

2,180

2,080

2,057

2,443

2,409

2,360

2,436

2,365

2,287

2,258

1,872

1,647

1,241

1,190

1,154

1,207

1,025

1,229

1,412

1,426

1,726

1,686

1,770

1,649

1,564

1,641

Population

2003

1,065,462,000

47,700,000

Live Births

2003

25,052,000

562,000

Ratio (per 1,000 bir= ths)

=

0.044<= /o:p>

=

0.078<= /o:p>

=

4.1

=

2.8

Source of demographic data: State of the World’s Chil= dren 2005, N.Y: UNICEF
50 years of intercountry adoption from South Korea

Korea continues to be a sending country with one of the highest rates of ICA. Since 4intercountry adoption began= in 1955, more than 120,000 children have been placed for adoption in other countries. Over 70 per cent of these went to the United States, where the numb= er of Korean “orphans” entering the country peaked at over 6,000 in the mid-1970s. . Initiall= y, many of the infants placed were of mixed race - the fathers being US = military servicemen - but by the 1990s there were very few mixed race children placed for adoption.

.

South Korea today= is a prosperous country with an high level of education and a low birth rate (Table 8), but there is a continuing problem over stigma of unmarried parenthood and in the absence of a comprehensive welfare system, it is impossible for a poor single mother to keep her child (Rahn 2005). Sarri et al (1998) argue that ICA has discouraged = Korea from developing an adeq= uate child welfare programme. Korea has one of the highest rates of institutionalised children in developed countries. Thus the example of South Korea<= /st1:country-region> reminds us that the factors influencing ICA may change over time and that there may also be a factor of inertia which m= akes it difficult to stop intercountry adoption.

=

Since the Olympic Games of 1988 there has been constant talk in Korea of a reduction in and eventual end of ICA. In 1989, the Ministry of Social Affairs proposed a schedule which would have reduced the number of intercountry adoptions to 1,700 by 1995 and raised the number of domestic adoptions to 3,500. However Table 9 shows that after a steady fall to 2,057 in 1997, numbers have been rising again despite a new = 20 year plan, announced in 1997, to phase out ICA by the year 2020. Between 1998 and = 2004 have fluctuated between 2,250 and 2,500

=

Meanwhile there is increasing criticism of the Korean government from adoptees themselves (Hubinette 2004). Since 2000 there have been three “Adoptee Gatherings”, the latest being held in Seoul in 2004. Some of the adoptees have now retu= rned to live in Korea, working with returning adoptees (e.g. G.O.A.’L. - Global Overseas Adoptee’s Link - http:// goal.org.kr) and raising awareness of issues in int= er country adoption   ( e.g.= ASK - www.adopteesolidarity.org).

=

Intercountry Adoption in India

Adoption of unrel= ated children in India dates back to the 1960s, but it was not until the 1970s that child welfare organisations became involved. Intercountry adoption started in the same pe= riod and grew rapidly in the next two decades. Concern over abuses led eventuall= y to the historic Supreme Court judgement of 1984, which attempted to regulate intercountry adoption mainly through the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 which deals with non-Hindu adoptions (Apparao 1997)

=

The Central Adoption Resource Agency (CARA) was set up in 1990 and has now become the central authority for the country, following I= ndia’s ratification of the Hague Convention in 2002 (Bhargava. 2005). Between 1929 and= 2004 the annual number of recorded intercountry adoptions has fluctuated between 1,000 and 1,400. but these numbers are likely to be an underestimate as for most of this period they exclude adoptions by non-resident Indians, which w= ere classified as “in-country” (Selman 2005b). My own calculations (Selman 2005a)= for 1998-2002, based on adoptions to 20 receiving States, are between 1,200 and 1,400.

=

There have been concerns over “child trafficking” in some Indian States for many years. Smolin (2005) talks of the “two faces of intercountry adoption” and describes and analyses the adoption scanda= ls in Andhra Pradesh, which involved serious charges of abusive adoption pract= ices including baby buying and other illicit means of obtaining children for adoption.

Krishnakumar (2005) writes that “inter-country adoption, which began primarily as an ad hoc humanitarian response to children orphaned by = the Second World War, who could not find a family to care for them in their own country, is now a complex social phenomena that has lent itself to serious abuse”. In an investigation for India’s national magazine, Frontline, he cla= ims to expose “a multi-billion-dollar, countrywide racket in inter-country adoption of children, run by private adoption agencies that exploit the loopholes in the rules”, citing the arrest in Chennai on May 3, 2005,= of five kidnappers, who had sold over 350 children to an adoption agency in the city over many years.

In India t= he number of domestic adoptions recorded annually doubled between 1991 and 200= 0 and topped 2,000 in 2002 (Table 9). This number is however very low compared to= Korea w= hen standardised against population size or number of live births. These figures include intercountry adoptions by non-resident Indians living abroad in the= US or Europe.

=

However, some Indian commentators s= ay that the numbers are too low = as CARA gets reports about in-country adoption only from agencies licensed to them for intercountry adoption (Ramaswamy 2005). The figures do not include many of= the adoptions arranged by agencies that do purely in-country adoption, `illegal= ’ adoptions (carried out through faked birth certificates) and open, community-based adoptions. Dhana (2005) estimates that the state of Andhra Pradesh alone had completed 392 in-country adoptions between July 2001-July 2004. =

Is there a trade in children? =

Concerns over the trafficking of children, which we have already discussed in relation to India, have increased in the last decade, despite the growing number of States ratifying the Hague Convention ( Smolin 2004). The Evan B Donaldson Institute has argued that “international adoption has developed into a potentially lucrative and largely un regulated business” and that “the market forces inherent in intercountry adoption pose a potential threat to the welfare of children as well as their birth parents and prospective adoptive parents”.

I want to end this paper with a brief look at two countr= ies - Cambodia and <= st1:place w:st=3D"on">Guatemala<= /st1:place> - which have attracted attention as examplles of this potential becoming a reality.

=

Cambodia

The number of adoptions from Cambodia to the 20 receiving States in my study rose from 346 in 1998 to 625 in 2002 (see Tabl= e 10 below). In 2003 the numbers f= ell back to 286, following new restrictions on adoptions from that country to t= he US and France. During the same period there were no recorded adoptions to any of the Nordic countries, which had = long been concerned about practices in the country, while the number of adoption= s to the UK and Italy r= ose. In 2004 there were no adoptions arranged from = Cambodia by agencies that were members of EurAdopt.

Tabl= e 10:       Inter= country Adoptions from Cambo= dia 1998 - 2003

CAMBODIA 1998-2003<= /h1>

1998-2003<= /o:p>

1998=

1999=

2000=

2001=

2002=

2003=

Receiving

State v

USA

1543

249

248

402

266

254

124

France

1083

95

153

169

278

328

60

Italy

43

0

0

0

0

14

29

Canada

85

?

?

21

19

22

23

Sub-total<= /b>

For 4 States

2,754

344<= /span>

401<= /span>

592<= /span>

563<= /span>

618<= /span>

236<= /span>

UK<= /st1:country-region>

49

2

0

1

0

6

40

Sub-total<= /b>

For
5 states

2,803

346<= /span>

401<= /span>

592<= /span>

563<= /span>

624<= /span>

276<= /span>

   TOTAL

for 20

States

2,823

347<= /span>

403<= /span>

596<= /span>

565<= /span>

626<= /span>

286<= /span>

On 22 June 2004 Margaret Hodge, the Minist= er of State for Children, announced an immediate, "temporary" (though indefinite) "suspension" of intercountry adoptions to the UK from Cambodia. T= he specific areas of concern were;

·      =    Evidence relating to the systematic falsification of Cambodian official documents related to the adoption of children;

·      =    Evidence relating to the extensive involvement of adoption facilitators in the adopt= ion procedure in Cambodi= a even though Cambodian law expressly forbids facilitators participating in t= he adoption process;

·      =    Evidence relating to the procurement of children for intercountry adoption by facilitators, including by coercion and by paying birth mothers to give up their children; and

·      =    Concern about the prevalence of children trafficking and corruption generally in Cambodia.

The decisi= on was challenged through the process of judicial review by 6 prospective adoptive parents who were in the process of adopting at the time of the decision. However, on July 4^th 2005, Mr Justice = Munby, sitting at the High Court in London, ruled that the Government action was "both appropriate and proportionate", saying that the legal attack "fails on ev= ery ground".

In a lecture at Samf= ord University in Alabama, Richard Cross (2005), Senior special agent, US Immigration and Customs Enforceme= nt Human Trafficking Unit discusses the Operation Broken Hearts investigation which led to two Americans, involved in facilitating more than 700 adoptions from C= ambodia, pleading guilty to Federal felony criminal charges related to their international adoption related activities.=

&= nbsp;

&= nbsp;

Guatemala

&= nbsp;

Guatemala has been one of the major sources of children for intercountry adopt= ion for many years. In 2003 Guatemala sent mo= re children (2,556) for intercountry adoption than any other country, apart fr= om China and = Russia. 2,328 of these (88%) = went to the United States; = 247 (10%) to France; and 24 (1%) = to the UK: - the same three countries as took most from Cambodia. None of the other 27 receiving Sta= tes took more than 10 children - see Table 11 below, which shows the numb= er of children sent from Guatemala in 2003 to the five major receiving States also includes summary data for adoptions from China, = Korea, Ind= ia and Cambodia.

Table 11 &n= bsp; Adoptions to 5 Major Receiving States and the UK 2003

St= ate of

Origin >

ALL

China

Russia

Guatemala

=

Korea

India

Philippines

Cambodia<= /b>

=

USA

=

21,616

6,= 859

5,= 209

2,328

1,= 790

47= 2

21= 4

12= 4

=

France

=

3,995

36= 0

33= 3

247

46=

23=

19=

60=

=

Spain

=

3,951

1,= 043

1,= 157

8

0<= o:p>

10= 0

0<= o:p>

0<= o:p>

=

Italy

=

2,772

0<= o:p>

38= 0

8

0<= o:p>

12= 1

0<= o:p>

29=

=

Canada

2,181

1,= 108

92=

0

73=

70=

56=

23=

Sub-

Total ( 5 )

34,515

9,370

7,171

2,591

1,909

786

289

236

=

UK<= span lang=3DEN-GB style=3D'mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt;layout-grid-mode:both;mso= -bidi-font-style: italic'>

<= o:p>

3= 00

<= o:p>

108

33

28

0=

24

5=

40

Total to 20 states

40,791

11,181

7,632

2,656

2,306

1,106

388

286

&n= bsp;

&n= bsp;

&n= bsp;

*** None recorded in Canadian Statistics as only top 25 countr= ies are recorded; Canada h= as now stopped all adoptions from Guatemala.

However, there have been claims that many international adopti= ons in Guatemala involve a variety of criminal offences including the buying and selling of children, and the falsifying of documents. There are an estimated 25,000 children in orphanages in Guatemala, so that the need for family placement is great, but reports suggest that ma= ny adoptions involve young children, for whom there is a greater demand, and t= hat some of these involve irregularities

The Special Commission of the = Hague Conference held in November/December 2000 was particularly concerned about = these reports and the perceived lack of regulation in Guatemala and specifically requested the Secretary General to write to the Guatemalan Ambassador in the Hague noting the concerns expressed by a number of the 57 States represente= d at the Commission and calling on Guatemala to enact legislation and create a central authority so that it could accede to the Convention ( The Hague Conference 2001).Subsequently Guatemala acceded to the convention, but several States, including the UK, = have objected.

Conc= lusion

    =

I have shown above that the number of intercountry adoptions is now at its highest ever level = in global terms - confounding predictions from the early 1990s that ICA was a phenome= non that had peaked. It remains - as it has always been - predominantly a movement of children from poorer to richer countries.

=

The level of adop= tion is determined by the demand for children in rich western countries and the availability of children in those countries afflicted by poverty and other = ills (Lovelock 2000) and the upward trend shows no sign of ending.

=

Several commentat= ors (e.g. Weil, 1984; Hoksbergen, 2000) argue that the nature of intercountry adoption has changed over time and that the humanitarian motivation of the early years has given way to a demand from childless couples. Some (e.g. Freundlich) argue that intercountry adoption is increasingly a trade in children and Smolin (2004) says that it will probably continue as such, “with a recurrent cycle = of scandal, excuse and ineffective reform” until eventually it is abolis= hed as a “neo-colonial mistake”.

=

Whatever the tren= ds in individual countries, the recent rise in total numbers of intercountry adoptions makes the need for continuing research on the “epidemiologi= cal parameters” of the movement of children (Kane, 1993) and on the alternatives for children and birth families in the States of origin even m= ore crucial than it was in the early 1990s.

REFER= ENCES

&nbs= p;

Altstein H. & Simon J. (1991) Intercountry Adoption; a multinational perspective,<= /span>

&= nbsp;          New&nbs= p; York: Praeger.

Apparao H. (1997) “International Adoption of Children: the Indian Scene” International Journal = of Behavioural Development

Bhargava V (2005) Adoption in India: policies and experiences, New Delhi: Sage

Cross R   (2005)       “What really happened in Cambodia”. Presentation in the = ;   Rushton Distinquished Lec= ture Series: Reforming Intercountry Adoption:      &nb= sp; Present Realities and Future Prospects; Cumberland School of Law; Samford     University; Birmingham, AL; April 15, 2005

Dhana A (2005) On Their Own: A Socio-Legal Investigation of Inter-Co= untry

&nb= sp;           Adop= tion in India, Hyderabad: Spark-India.

Duncan W (1993) “The Hague Convention on the protection of children and co-

=             o= peration in respect of intercountry adoptio= n   Adoption & Fostering

=             1= 7-3 pp 9-13

Foncesca C (2002) “The Politics of Adoption: Child Rights in the Brazilian Setting”
= Law and Policy 24-3, pp 199-227

Fonseca C (2004) Transnational influences in thr social production of adoptable

children: the case of = Brazil, “Transnational Aspect= os of Localized Conflicts and Protest.”, Kontakt der <= /p>
Kontinenten, Soesterberg, T= he Netherlands. 19-21 December.

Haugard J et = al (2000)      &= nbsp; “International Adoption; Children predominantly from

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp; Asia and South America” Adoption Qua= rterly 3-2, pp 83-9   <= /o:p>

= Hoksbergen R A C [ed] (1986) Adoption in Worldwide Perspective, Lisse:

=         &= nbsp;   Swets & Zeitliger.=

Hubinet= te T (2004) “Adopted Koreans and the development of identity in the “third

=         &= nbsp;   space” Adoption & Fostering Vol 28 no 1, pp 25-37

Johnson K, Banghan H and Liyao W (1998) “Infant Abandonm= ent and Adoption

in China” Population & Development Review= Vol 24 no 3, pp 469-510.

= Kane S. (1993)      &= nbsp; “The Movement of Children for International Adoption: an epidemiological perspective”, The Social Scie= nce Journal, 30-4, pp 323-339

Kim, E. (2= 000)        &= nbsp; Ten Thousand Sorrows: The Extraordinary Journey of a

   &= nbsp;        Korean War Orphan. New York: Double= day

Krishnakumar A (2005) “The Adoption Market” Frontline Volume 22 - Issue 11, May

21 - Jun. 03

Lovelock K (2000)    “Intercountry Ado= ption as a Migratory Practice” International
Migration Review, = 34 (3) pp 907 - 949.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;    Meier D (1999) “Cultural identity in adult Korean-American intercountry adoptees” Adoption Quarterly 3-1,

Pilotti D (1990)        &= nbsp; Intercountry Adoption; Trends, issues = and policy implications

for the 1990s Inter Americ= an Children’s Institute

            Rahn K (2005) “Single Mothers Face Discrimination”, The Korea Times

        &= nbsp;   = Ryvgold A, Dalen M. & Saetersdal = B. (1999)     Mine - Yours - Ours and Theirs,

=             <= st1:City w:st=3D"on">Oslo; University of Oslo<= /span>

Sarri R, Baik Y and Bombyk M. (1998)   “Goal Displacement and Dependency in

=             S= outh Korean - United States Intercountry Adoption” Children & Youth

=         &= nbsp;   Services Review, Vol 20 - 1 pp 87-114

Selman P. (1976)<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>     "Patterns of Adoption in England &a= mp; Wales since 1959" Social Work Today<= /i> 7-7 1976.

Selman P. (1988) =     Family Planning, Reviews of UK Statist= ical Sources Vol XXV, published for the Royal Statistical Society and the Economic & Social Research Council by Chapman & Hall, 1988.

Selman P (1989)      “Inte= r-country Adoption: what can B= ritain learn from the

experience of= other European countries?” In G. Room Towards a

European Welfare State= ., Bristol: SAUS.

= Selman P (1997)      = The Demography of Child Adoption: paper presented at ISA Workshop on Population, Beijing, 11 Oct 1997.

Selman P. (1998)     “Intercount= ry Adoption in Europe after the H= ague

Convention= 221; in R. Sykes & P. Alcock (eds) Developments in European

Social Policy: Convergence and Diversit= y, Bristol= = : Policy Press

= Selman P (1999)      R= 20;The Demography of Intercountry Adoption”. In A. Ryvgold,

M. Dalen & B. Saetersdal Mine - Yours - Ours and Thei= rs, University of Oslo<= /st1:PlaceName>.

Selman P (1999b)&nb= sp; In Search of Origins; twenty= two years of access to Birth Records in

        &= nbsp;   the UK. Poster presentation, International Conference on Adoption Research,

   &n= bsp;        Minneapolis, August 1999

= Selman P (2000)    “The demographic history of intercountry adoption” pp 15-37 in

=         &= nbsp;   P.Selman      (ed) Intercountry Adoption: Developments, Trends and

&= nbsp;          Perspect= ives. London= : BAAF

Selman P (2001) “Interc= ountry Adoption in the new millennium: the ‘quiet migration’

=             r= evisited”, paper presented at European Population conference, Helsink= i,

=             <= st1:country-region w:st=3D"on">Finland= , May 2001: - an updated version of this paper is available from the

        &= nbsp;   author by e-mailing pfselman@yahoo.co.uk

Selman P. (2002) “Intercountry Adoption in the= new millennium: the ‘quiet migration’

=         &= nbsp;   revisited” Population Research & Policy Review 21: 205-22= 5

Selman P (2005a)   Trends in Intercountry Adoption 1998-2003: a review of recent         &= nbsp; statistics for receiving States, Adoption Working Paper 1, School of       &nbs= p;   Geography, Politics & Sociology, University of Newcastle.

= Selman P (2005b) Intercountry Adoption 1998-2003: a demographic analysis, =    Paper to be presented at the First Global Research Conference on Adoption,         &= nbsp; Copenhagen, Septe= mber 9-10

Selman P. = & Wells S. (1996)    &nbs= p;    "Post adoption issues in Intercountry

   &= nbsp;        Adoption" pp 192-210 in E. McWilliams & R. Phillips (eds) After Adoption -

        &= nbsp;   Working with Adoptive Families. London: BAAF.

Selman P. & White J. (1994)        "The role of 'accredited bodies' in

   &= nbsp;        intercountry adoption" Adoption & Fostering 18-2 pp 7-13, [ Reprinted =

   &= nbsp;        in M. Hill and M. Shaw Signposts in Adoption, London: BAAF, 1998

Smolin D (2004)&nbs= p;      “Intercountry Adoption as Child Trafficking”, Valparaiso Law &= nbsp;           Re= view 39-2 pp 281-325`

Smolin D (2005) &nb= sp;     “The Two= Faces of Intercountry Adoption: The Significance of          the Indian Adoption Scandals” Seton Hall Law Review 35 pp 403-493.

The Ha= gue Conference (2001) Repo= rt on the Special Commission of Nov-Dec 2000

http://hcch.e-vision.nl/index_en.php?act=3Dpublic= ations.details&pid=3D2273&dtid=3D2

UNICEF (1999)&nbs= p; Intercountry Adoption Information Portfolio
=             http://www.unicef-icdc.org/information/portfolios/intercountry-adopti= on

UNICEF (2005) State of the World’s Chil= dren 2005: NY: UNICEF

Van Loon H (1990) Report on Intercountry Adoption. Hague: The Hague

Conference.

Weil R H (1984)        “International Adoptions: The Quiet Migration”

International Migration Review, 18 (2) pp 276 - 293.

Country	= Number of Adoptions¹<= /p> 2003	= Adoptions per 1,000 births¹ 2003	Number of Adoptions² 1998	Adoptions per 1,000 births 1998²	Adoptions per 1,000 births 1989 ³
Norway	714	13.5	643	11.2	11.0
Sweden	1,046	11.4	928	10.8	9.4
Spain	3,951	10.4	1,497	4.2	N/A
Luxembourg	51	10.2	60	12.0	N/A
Denmark	523	8.4	624	9.9	8.5
Canada	2,181	6.8	2,222	6.5	2.7**
Switzerland	366<= sup>	6.0	686	8.6	6.7
Ireland	341	6.0	147	2.8	N/A
Netherlands	1,154	5.9	825	4.6	3.7
Italy	2,772	5.5	2,233	4.4	3.8
France	3,995	5.2	3,777	5.3	3.0
USA	21,616	5.1	15,774	4.2	2.0
Finland	238	4.3	181	3.2	2.0
Australia	278	1.2	245	1.0	1.4
UK	300	0.5	258	0.4	N/A

Worldwide (20 states)	Europe (16 states)	UNITED STATES 2003
Country	Number of Adoptions	Country	Number of Adoptions	Country	Number of Adoptions
China<= o:p>	11= ,181	<= st1:country-region w:st=3D"on">China	3,156	China<= /st1:place>	6,= 859
Russia<= o:p>	7,= 632	<= st1:country-region w:st=3D"on">Russia	2,294	Russia	5,= 209
<= st1:country-region w:st=3D"on">Guatemala	2,656	Colombia	1,401	Guatemala	2,= 328
<= st1:place w:st=3D"on">S Korea	2,306	Ukraine	1,227	= S Korea	1,= 790
<= st1:country-region w:st=3D"on">Ukraine	1,951	Bulgaria	741	Kazakhstan	82= 5
<= st1:country-region w:st=3D"on">Colombia	1,718	Haiti	652	Ukraine	70= 2
<= st1:country-region w:st=3D"on">India	1,106	Ethiopia	593	India	47= 2
<= st1:country-region w:st=3D"on">Haiti	1,051	India	515	Vietnam	38= 2
<= st1:country-region w:st=3D"on">Bulgaria	939	Vietnam	459	Colombia	27= 2
<= st1:country-region w:st=3D"on">Vietnam	889	Brazil	452	Haiti	250
From all countries	&= nbsp; 40,791= &= nbsp;	From all countries	= 16,438=	From all countries	&= nbsp; 21,616=

<= o:p> C= ountry <= o:p>	N= umber of A= doptions 2= 003	A= doption Ratio (= per 1,000 live births) 2= 003
Bulgaria	939	15.1
Guatemala	2,656	6.3
Russia<= o:p>	7,632	6= .2
Kazhakstan	853	5.6
Ukraine	1,951	4.8
Cambodia	286	4.6
Haiti	1,051	4.2
S Korea	2,306	4.1
Belarus	633	2.5
Romania	409	1.8
Colombia	1,718	1.8
Poland	343	0.9
China<= o:p>	11,181	0= .6
Vietnam	889	0.54
Philippines	388	0.54
Madagascar	375	0.52
India	1,106	0.04

	Adoptions	Incom= e	Fertility	Mortality
Receiv= ing States	*Childr= en adopted from abroad in 2003**	Per Ca= pita GNP [USD]	Total Fertility Rate	Infant Mortality Rate
United States<= /o:p> &= nbsp;	21,616	37,610	2.1	7
France<= /o:p> &= nbsp;	3,995	24,770	1.9	4
Spain<= /o:p> &= nbsp;	3,951	16,990	1.2	4
Italy<= /o:p> &= nbsp;	2,772	21,560	1.2	4
Canada<= /o:p> &= nbsp;	2,222	23,930	1.5	5

States of Origin v	Children sent f= or adoption to the 5 cou= ntries	Total sent on 2= 003 to 20 countries	Per Capita GNI = [USD]	Total Fertility= Rate	Infant Mortalit= y Rate
China=	9,370	11,181	1,= 100	1.= 8	30=
Russia	7,171	7,632	2,= 610	1.= 1	16=
Guatemala	2,591	2,656	1,= 910	4.= 4	35=
Korea=	1,909	2,306	12= ,030	1.= 4	5<= /span>
Ukraine<= b>	1,850	1,951	97= 0	1.= 2	15=
Colombia=	1,143	1,718	1,= 810	2.= 6	18=
India=	766	1,106	53= 0	3.= 0	63=
Haiti=	565	1,051	38= 0	3.= 9	76=
Bulgaria=	697	939<= /span>	2,= 130	1.= 1	14=
Vietnam<= b>	739	889<= /span>	48= 0	2.= 3	19=
*PHILIPPINES*	289	*388*	= 1,020<= /p>	= 3.1	= 27

CAMBODIA 1998-2003<= /h1>
	1998-2003<= /o:p>	1998=	1999=	2000=	2001=	2002=	2003=
Receiving State v
USA	1543	249	248	402	266	254	124
France	1083	95	153	169	278	328	60
Italy	43	0	0	0	0	14	29
Canada	85	?	?	21	19	22	23
Sub-total<= /b> *For 4 States*	*2,754*	*344<= /span>*	*401<= /span>*	*592<= /span>*	*563<= /span>*	*618<= /span>*	*236<= /span>*
UK<= /st1:country-region>	49	2	0	1	0	6	40
Sub-total<= /b> *For* *5 states*	*2,803*	*346<= /span>*	*401<= /span>*	*592<= /span>*	*563<= /span>*	*624<= /span>*	*276<= /span>*
TOTAL for 20 States	2,823	347<= /span>	403<= /span>	596<= /span>	565<= /span>	626<= /span>	286<= /span>

Introduction<= /b>

Towards a demography of interco= untry adoption

In his 1984 article, Weil argued that many aspects of intercou= ntry adoption were not well understood and concluded that :

“To answer questions such as = those listed above requires far more data be

collected on a systematic worldwide basis.= The total volume of foreign

adoptees, how this number has changed over= time, precisely what countries

are linked in the flows of children….” (Weil= 1984 pp 289-90)

.

The growth of intercountry adop= tion since 1990

Which countries receive most children?

Country

Standardisation of ICA against population or birth levels = in receiving States

Selected Receiving Countries 1

Adoption Ratio (per 1,000 live births) for 15 receiving States= , 1989 - 2003 in order of ratio of intercountry adoptions to live births in 2003:

China<= /st1:place>

Demographic influences on intercountry adoption

Incom= e

Intercountry adoption from the viewpoint of States of origin

Is there a trade in children? =

=

Cambodia

CAMBODIA 1998-2003<= /h1>

On 22 June 2004 Margaret Hodge, the Minist= er of State for Children, announced an immediate, "temporary" (though indefinite) "suspension" of intercountry adoptions to the UK from Cambodia. T= he specific areas of concern were;

Guatemala

UK<= span lang=3DEN-GB style=3D'mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt;layout-grid-mode:both;mso= -bidi-font-style: italic'>

Hubinet= te T (2004) “Adopted Koreans and the development of identity in the “third

Sarri R, Baik Y and Bombyk M. (1998) “Goal Displacement and Dependency in

Selected Receiving Countries ¹