Youth unemployment — all countries

Youth unemployment — Philippines

Youth unemployment in the Philippines in 2025 — 7.04%. Ranked 45 in the world out of 182. Since 1991, the indicator has fallen by 2.08 pp.

2025 7.04% +0.08 pp vs 2024
World rank 45of 182
Period maximum 10.15%2009
Period minimum 6.61%2018

Trend over time

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

Youth unemployment — Philippines, 1991–20256789101119911995199920032007201120152019202320251991: 9.12%1992: 9.39%1993: 9.48%1994: 9.35%1995: 9.24%1996: 9.16%1997: 9.18%1998: 9.36%1999: 9.48%2000: 9.54%2001: 9.42%2002: 9.17%2003: 8.92%2004: 9.06%2005: 9.25%2006: 10.02%2007: 8.74%2008: 9.84%2009: 10.15%2010: 9.74%2011: 9.48%2012: 9.36%2013: 9.17%2014: 9.47%2015: 8.51%2016: 7.63%2017: 7.38%2018: 6.61%2019: 6.7%2020: 6.99%2021: 8.43%2022: 6.81%2023: 6.91%2024: 6.96%2025: 7.04%
Change over the period: −2.08 pp Annual average: -0.06 pp

Comparison, 2025

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

Philippines 7.04%
World 13.41%
South-Eastern Asia computed 9.26%
Youth unemployment — Philippines, by year Philippines All countries CSV XLSX
Year % Change, pp
2025 7.04 +0.08 pp
2024 6.96 +0.05 pp
2023 6.91 +0.1 pp
2022 6.81 −1.62 pp
2021 8.43 +1.45 pp
2020 6.99 +0.29 pp
2019 6.7 +0.09 pp
2018 6.61 −0.77 pp
2017 7.38 −0.26 pp
2016 7.63 −0.88 pp
2015 8.51 −0.96 pp
2014 9.47 +0.3 pp
2013 9.17 −0.2 pp
2012 9.36 −0.12 pp
2011 9.48 −0.26 pp
2010 9.74 −0.41 pp
2009 10.15 +0.31 pp
2008 9.84 +1.1 pp
2007 8.74 −1.28 pp
2006 10.02 +0.77 pp
2005 9.25 +0.19 pp
2004 9.06 +0.14 pp
2003 8.92 −0.25 pp
2002 9.17 −0.25 pp
2001 9.42 −0.12 pp
2000 9.54 +0.06 pp
1999 9.48 +0.12 pp
1998 9.36 +0.18 pp
1997 9.18 +0.02 pp
1996 9.16 −0.08 pp
1995 9.24 −0.11 pp
1994 9.35 −0.13 pp
1993 9.48 +0.09 pp
1992 9.39 +0.27 pp
1991 9.12 —

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.