This has been attributed to the younger age of Korean children when adopted when compared to other groups of adoptees, better pre-adoption care related to the Korean foster care system, and placement with parents who are more aware of issues such as cultural identity (Kim, Shin & Carey 1999). Where negative findings related to adjustment are reported, these are often attributed to intrapersonal characteristics of the adopted child (Kim, W. J. 1995;Lindblad, Hjern & Vinnerljung 2003) with little attention paid to external influences such as parental skills, preparation and support, pre-adoption experiences, access to post adoption services, mono or multicultural characteristics of the environment in which they are raised and racism. These studies vary in method, population, sample size and rigour and are most often conducted with populations in Europe and the USA. There are limited Australian studies concerning the adjustment of adoptees. One early study examined the experience of children adopted into Australia from Vietnam (Harvey 1982(Harvey , 1983.Recent works that examine the cultural identity of adoptees in Australia are emerging and are subject to debate (Gray 2007a(Gray , 2007bRosenwald, Garton & O'Connor 2008;Walton 2008;Williams 2001Williams , 2003. This body of work is beyond the scope of this study and not included in the literature review.The focus of this thesis is not on the experience of overseas adoption hence the literature on individual and family experiences and adjustment is not reviewed.The focus of this thesis is on international adoption as a social, political and global phenomenon. The literature review therefore focuses on the socio-cultural, political, legal and demographic literature.These literatures revealed multiple discourses, often opposing, concerning intercountry adoption. These discourses are: intercountry adoption as a market, that is, a phenomenon characterised by supply and demand in a global market; rights, that is, the right to parent, the rights of the child, and the 'best interests of the child'; and post colonial perspectives. Masson (2001, p. 148-9) identifies three value positions held by those engaged in intercountry adoption. She calls them abolitionists, pragmatists, and promoters. Abolitionists support the cessation of intercountry adoption for reasons such as: the money invested in the adoption of children internationally would better address the needs of children if spent in the sending country; intercountry adoption inhibits the development of local services; the negative effect of child export on the sending country; the neocolonial and ethnocentric attitudes central to the flow of children from poor to rich countries; and the potential for child trafficking.Promoters hold opposing views that identify intercountry adoption as an ideal solution for children who require a loving home and that bureaucracy establishes unnecessary barriers to this solution.Whereas pragmatists, according to Masson (2001), accept the realities that intercountry adoption does analysi...