Youth unemployment — all countries

Youth unemployment — South Asia

Youth unemployment in South Asia in 2025 — 15.4%. Since 1991, the indicator has fallen by 3.46 pp.

2025 15.4% +0.26 pp vs 2024
World rank —
Period maximum 24.26%2018
Period minimum 14.9%2023

Trend over time

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

Youth unemployment — South Asia, 1991–202512.51517.52022.52519911995199920032007201120152019202320251991: 18.86%1992: 18.91%1993: 18.98%1994: 18.89%1995: 18.83%1996: 18.74%1997: 18.85%1998: 18.87%1999: 18.94%2000: 18.99%2001: 19.1%2002: 19.33%2003: 19.27%2004: 19.54%2005: 19.77%2006: 19.83%2007: 20.26%2008: 20.8%2009: 21.31%2010: 21.31%2011: 21.72%2012: 22.26%2013: 22.69%2014: 22.94%2015: 23.21%2016: 23.49%2017: 23.89%2018: 24.26%2019: 21.62%2020: 23.44%2021: 20.03%2022: 17.1%2023: 14.9%2024: 15.14%2025: 15.4%
Change over the period: −3.46 pp Annual average: -0.1 pp

Comparison, 2025

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

South Asia 15.4%
World 13.41%
Youth unemployment — South Asia, by year South Asia All countries CSV XLSX
Year % Change, pp
2025 15.4 +0.26 pp
2024 15.14 +0.25 pp
2023 14.9 −2.2 pp
2022 17.1 −2.93 pp
2021 20.03 −3.41 pp
2020 23.44 +1.82 pp
2019 21.62 −2.64 pp
2018 24.26 +0.37 pp
2017 23.89 +0.4 pp
2016 23.49 +0.28 pp
2015 23.21 +0.26 pp
2014 22.94 +0.26 pp
2013 22.69 +0.43 pp
2012 22.26 +0.54 pp
2011 21.72 +0.4 pp
2010 21.31 −0 pp
2009 21.31 +0.51 pp
2008 20.8 +0.54 pp
2007 20.26 +0.43 pp
2006 19.83 +0.07 pp
2005 19.77 +0.23 pp
2004 19.54 +0.27 pp
2003 19.27 −0.06 pp
2002 19.33 +0.23 pp
2001 19.1 +0.11 pp
2000 18.99 +0.06 pp
1999 18.94 +0.07 pp
1998 18.87 +0.02 pp
1997 18.85 +0.11 pp
1996 18.74 −0.09 pp
1995 18.83 −0.06 pp
1994 18.89 −0.09 pp
1993 18.98 +0.07 pp
1992 18.91 +0.04 pp
1991 18.86 —

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.