Youth unemployment — all countries

Youth unemployment — Jamaica

Youth unemployment in Jamaica in 2025 — 10.81%. Ranked 80 in the world out of 182. Since 1991, the indicator has fallen by 3.65 pp.

2025 10.81% +0.43 pp vs 2024
World rank 80of 182
Period maximum 27.23%2013
Period minimum 9.99%2023

Trend over time

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

Youth unemployment — Jamaica, 1991–20255101520253019911995199920032007201120152019202320251991: 14.46%1992: 14.89%1993: 14.74%1994: 15.04%1995: 15.13%1996: 15.77%1997: 16.01%1998: 16.39%1999: 16.55%2000: 16.6%2001: 16.55%2002: 16.6%2003: 16.55%2004: 16.71%2005: 16.84%2006: 16.95%2007: 17.01%2008: 17.18%2009: 18.55%2010: 20.45%2011: 20.36%2012: 23.4%2013: 27.23%2014: 26.35%2015: 25.78%2016: 24.66%2017: 21.69%2018: 18.06%2019: 15.96%2020: 20.09%2021: 16.84%2022: 13.12%2023: 9.99%2024: 10.38%2025: 10.81%
Change over the period: −3.65 pp Annual average: -0.11 pp

Comparison, 2025

How the value compares with the world and the groups this territory belongs to: Jamaica

Jamaica 10.81%
World 13.41%
Youth unemployment — Jamaica, by year Jamaica All countries CSV XLSX
Year % Change, pp
2025 10.81 +0.43 pp
2024 10.38 +0.39 pp
2023 9.99 −3.13 pp
2022 13.12 −3.72 pp
2021 16.84 −3.25 pp
2020 20.09 +4.13 pp
2019 15.96 −2.1 pp
2018 18.06 −3.62 pp
2017 21.69 −2.98 pp
2016 24.66 −1.12 pp
2015 25.78 −0.57 pp
2014 26.35 −0.88 pp
2013 27.23 +3.83 pp
2012 23.4 +3.04 pp
2011 20.36 −0.09 pp
2010 20.45 +1.9 pp
2009 18.55 +1.37 pp
2008 17.18 +0.17 pp
2007 17.01 +0.06 pp
2006 16.95 +0.11 pp
2005 16.84 +0.14 pp
2004 16.71 +0.16 pp
2003 16.55 −0.05 pp
2002 16.6 +0.05 pp
2001 16.55 −0.05 pp
2000 16.6 +0.04 pp
1999 16.55 +0.16 pp
1998 16.39 +0.38 pp
1997 16.01 +0.25 pp
1996 15.77 +0.64 pp
1995 15.13 +0.09 pp
1994 15.04 +0.3 pp
1993 14.74 −0.15 pp
1992 14.89 +0.43 pp
1991 14.46 —

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.