Youth unemployment — all countries

Youth unemployment — Latvia

Youth unemployment in Latvia in 2025 — 12.95%. Ranked 92 in the world out of 182. Since 1991, the indicator has risen by 7.92 pp.

2025 12.95% −0.66 pp vs 2024
World rank 92of 182
Period maximum 38.26%1996
Period minimum 5.03%1991

Trend over time

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

Youth unemployment — Latvia, 1991–202501020304019911995199920032007201120152019202320251991: 5.03%1992: 12.11%1993: 30.56%1994: 34.32%1995: 35.02%1996: 38.26%1997: 27.64%1998: 26.95%1999: 23.53%2000: 21.27%2001: 24.16%2002: 25.25%2003: 20.42%2004: 21.8%2005: 15.14%2006: 13.62%2007: 10.56%2008: 13.65%2009: 33.43%2010: 36.24%2011: 31.07%2012: 28.56%2013: 23.24%2014: 19.6%2015: 16.32%2016: 17.27%2017: 16.97%2018: 12.19%2019: 12.42%2020: 14.87%2021: 14.79%2022: 15.27%2023: 12.32%2024: 13.61%2025: 12.95%
Change over the period: +7.92 pp Annual average: 0.23 pp

Comparison, 2025

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

Latvia 12.95%
World 13.41%
Northern Europe computed 15.5%
High-income countries computed 11.17%
Youth unemployment — Latvia, by year Latvia All countries CSV XLSX
Year % Change, pp
2025 12.95 −0.66 pp
2024 13.61 +1.29 pp
2023 12.32 −2.95 pp
2022 15.27 +0.48 pp
2021 14.79 −0.08 pp
2020 14.87 +2.45 pp
2019 12.42 +0.22 pp
2018 12.19 −4.78 pp
2017 16.97 −0.3 pp
2016 17.27 +0.96 pp
2015 16.32 −3.28 pp
2014 19.6 −3.64 pp
2013 23.24 −5.33 pp
2012 28.56 −2.51 pp
2011 31.07 −5.17 pp
2010 36.24 +2.81 pp
2009 33.43 +19.78 pp
2008 13.65 +3.09 pp
2007 10.56 −3.06 pp
2006 13.62 −1.53 pp
2005 15.14 −6.66 pp
2004 21.8 +1.38 pp
2003 20.42 −4.83 pp
2002 25.25 +1.09 pp
2001 24.16 +2.9 pp
2000 21.27 −2.27 pp
1999 23.53 −3.42 pp
1998 26.95 −0.69 pp
1997 27.64 −10.61 pp
1996 38.26 +3.23 pp
1995 35.02 +0.71 pp
1994 34.32 +3.76 pp
1993 30.56 +18.45 pp
1992 12.11 +7.08 pp
1991 5.03 —

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.