Youth unemployment — all countries

Youth unemployment — East Asia & Pacific

Youth unemployment in East Asia & Pacific in 2025 — 12.55%. Since 1991, the indicator has risen by 7.44 pp.

2025 12.55% +0.38 pp vs 2024
World rank —
Period maximum 12.55%2025
Period minimum 5.11%1991

Trend over time

1991–2025 · % of labor force aged 15–24

Youth unemployment — East Asia & Pacific, 1991–202546810121419911995199920032007201120152019202320251991: 5.11%1992: 5.17%1993: 5.74%1994: 6.52%1995: 6.81%1996: 7.18%1997: 7.49%1998: 8.21%1999: 8.67%2000: 8.53%2001: 9.31%2002: 10.02%2003: 10.43%2004: 10.5%2005: 10.81%2006: 10.52%2007: 10.16%2008: 10.17%2009: 10.48%2010: 9.94%2011: 10.03%2012: 9.81%2013: 9.92%2014: 10.08%2015: 10.37%2016: 10.17%2017: 9.91%2018: 9.49%2019: 9.66%2020: 11.21%2021: 11.2%2022: 12.11%2023: 12.4%2024: 12.17%2025: 12.55%
Change over the period: +7.44 pp Annual average: 0.22 pp

Comparison, 2025

How the value compares with the world and the groups this territory belongs to: East Asia & Pacific

East Asia & Pacific 12.55%
World 13.41%
Youth unemployment — East Asia & Pacific, by year East Asia & Pacific All countries CSV XLSX
Year % Change, pp
2025 12.55 +0.38 pp
2024 12.17 −0.23 pp
2023 12.4 +0.29 pp
2022 12.11 +0.91 pp
2021 11.2 −0.01 pp
2020 11.21 +1.55 pp
2019 9.66 +0.17 pp
2018 9.49 −0.42 pp
2017 9.91 −0.26 pp
2016 10.17 −0.2 pp
2015 10.37 +0.29 pp
2014 10.08 +0.16 pp
2013 9.92 +0.11 pp
2012 9.81 −0.22 pp
2011 10.03 +0.09 pp
2010 9.94 −0.54 pp
2009 10.48 +0.31 pp
2008 10.17 +0 pp
2007 10.16 −0.35 pp
2006 10.52 −0.29 pp
2005 10.81 +0.31 pp
2004 10.5 +0.07 pp
2003 10.43 +0.42 pp
2002 10.02 +0.7 pp
2001 9.31 +0.79 pp
2000 8.53 −0.14 pp
1999 8.67 +0.46 pp
1998 8.21 +0.72 pp
1997 7.49 +0.31 pp
1996 7.18 +0.38 pp
1995 6.81 +0.29 pp
1994 6.52 +0.78 pp
1993 5.74 +0.57 pp
1992 5.17 +0.05 pp
1991 5.11 —

About the indicator

The share of the economically active population aged 15–24 that is unemployed. In almost every country youth unemployment runs two to three times above the overall rate: the young have no experience, and their first entry into the labor market puts them up against more qualified workers. A sharp gap with the overall rate points to structural problems in the transition from school to work.

Source: ILOSTAT (ILO), license CC BY 4.0.