how to explain the variation in effectiveness of these different measures.
Discussion
At the most general level, it seems clear that information about
recognition rates and employment opportunities do reach asylum seekers
either directly or indirectly through their agents and traffickers, whereas
knowledge about more detailed policy measures is either not available to
asylum seekers or not considered important enough to determine decisions
regarding the choice of country of destination.
The likelihood of asylum seekers receiving some kind of status that allows
them to remain in their host country should they wish to do so,
unsurprisingly is of the utmost importance. We have known for some time
that that host countries interpret their international obligations under the
Geneva Refugee Convention in very different ways (ECRE 2000)31 and
that recognition rates can vary greatly between host countries at any
particular time, even for asylum seekers from the same country of origin
(Holzer and Schneider 2002: 43). Moreover, host countries have also dealt
very differently with discretionary granting of subsidiary protection status
to those asylum-seekers who do not qualify for refugee status but who host
states feel cannot or should not be sent back to their country of origin
(Thielemann 2003b). Even though asylum seekers will of course not have
access to comparative league tables on which to base their decisions,
information on whether or not other asylum seekers were allowed to
remain in a host country can be expected to be carried back to agents,
traffickers and other potential asylum seekers in the countries of origin.
Given the high significance of employment opportunities as a pull factor
for asylum seekers (see above), it is not surprising that a policy of not
allowing asylum seekers to work until their application has been decided
31 The variation in countries' treatment of 'non-state agents of persecution' is a case in
point.
29