Topic: The economics of choice in adoption

[Bezor]

Social work occasionally gives a nod to econometrics as in "what is the cost of x service" or "what is the cost of not giving x service".  Usually, these "costs" are defined in cloudy, anecdotal terms (ie. that ......(whatever behavior) cost me BIG time. or the State can no longer afford to do/provide x service). The term "cost" can be in monetary terms and can include reductions in an individual's freedom or expectation of further aid.

Adoption is a large business in America.  Childless couples are motivated to spend thousands of dollars on fertility treatments.  As a result, many families turn to adoption.  Adoption agencies, both public and private occasionally shield their ethics in order to place a child in an adoptive home.  Financially, there are several federal programs such as tax incentives as well as direct federal aid designed to increase the rate of adoption and reduce the number of children in foster care.  More often than not, families come together to provide for their own, nevertheless, some of those familial adoptions are still eligible for federal reimbursement. 

But who gets adopted and why?  What are the economics of adoption?  Do economics effect which children get adopted?  Why do American families adopt foreign children when the number of children in state care is plentiful?  How do economics influence that decision?  Is race an economic influence on who gets adopted?  Is gender an economic influence on who gets adopted?  What happens from an economic perspective when race AND gender are a consideration?

Here's one study that links the economics of adoption to who gets adopted and why: 
http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~lyariv/Papers/Adoption.pdf

[MG]

Bezor, first a confession. I did NOT meticulously study the entire report but rather jumped to the conclusion section. But I find the conclusions pretty much mirror what I would have predicted based upon my anecdotal real life observations.

My sister was adopted before I was born. From my personal observation, a girl was chosen by my parents precisely because they believed a girl would be more malleable to the life path they intended for her than a boy. Girls are just more docile, in general. And besides, they don't have one of those little snorkels that spray all over the place during toilet training!   

The preference for white/hispanic babies is simply a function of our society's racial attitudes. Whether we approve or not, skin color DOES play a huge role in a person's life. The lighter the better, is  always the rule. When I am delivering my court papers, if I ask someone to describe a person I am seeking, they ALWAYS begin with the relative pigmentation of the person's skin, usually as "lighter than me" or "darker than me".

Come to think of it, this dynamic applies in other cultures as well. From my time in Vietnam, I know that babies born to Vietnamese women by white servicemen were accorded a high position in Vietnamese society. However, babies born of black servicemen were accorded a far lower status and were often scorned. Our image of Vietnamese people out in their rice paddies wearing their coolie hats is another example. Light skin is prized in their society. The hats are not so much to provide protection from the sun as they are to keep the wearer's skin being darkened by the sun and thus lowering them in the estimation of their society.

I find adoption a fascinating subject. The adoptive parents often lade unrealistic and impossibly high expectations on their adopted children. And I know of so many childless couples who conceived a natural child after adopting that the relationship has to be statistically significant.

Thanks for sharing this with us.