Youth unemployment — all countries

Youth unemployment — South-Eastern Asia

Youth unemployment in South-Eastern Asia in 2025 — 9.26%. Since 1991, the indicator has risen by 2.93 pp.

2025 9.26% −0.08 pp vs 2024
World rank —
Period maximum 13.91%2005
Period minimum 6.18%1992

Trend over time

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

Youth unemployment — South-Eastern Asia, 1991–20256810121419911995199920032007201120152019202320251991: 6.33%1992: 6.18%1993: 6.4%1994: 8.17%1995: 8.43%1996: 8.77%1997: 9.01%1998: 10.5%1999: 11.68%2000: 11.42%2001: 11.66%2002: 12.09%2003: 12.02%2004: 12.81%2005: 13.91%2006: 13.36%2007: 12.64%2008: 11.39%2009: 11.22%2010: 10%2011: 10.19%2012: 9.19%2013: 9.27%2014: 9.57%2015: 10.28%2016: 9.94%2017: 9.6%2018: 9.66%2019: 8.7%2020: 9.88%2021: 10.26%2022: 9.73%2023: 9.32%2024: 9.34%2025: 9.26%
Change over the period: +2.93 pp Annual average: 0.09 pp

Comparison, 2025

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

South-Eastern Asia 9.26%
World 13.41%
Youth unemployment — South-Eastern Asia, by year South-Eastern Asia All countries CSV XLSX
Year % Change, pp
2025 9.26 −0.08 pp
2024 9.34 +0.02 pp
2023 9.32 −0.41 pp
2022 9.73 −0.53 pp
2021 10.26 +0.38 pp
2020 9.88 +1.17 pp
2019 8.7 −0.96 pp
2018 9.66 +0.06 pp
2017 9.6 −0.33 pp
2016 9.94 −0.34 pp
2015 10.28 +0.71 pp
2014 9.57 +0.29 pp
2013 9.27 +0.08 pp
2012 9.19 −1 pp
2011 10.19 +0.2 pp
2010 10 −1.22 pp
2009 11.22 −0.17 pp
2008 11.39 −1.25 pp
2007 12.64 −0.71 pp
2006 13.36 −0.55 pp
2005 13.91 +1.09 pp
2004 12.81 +0.79 pp
2003 12.02 −0.06 pp
2002 12.09 +0.43 pp
2001 11.66 +0.24 pp
2000 11.42 −0.27 pp
1999 11.68 +1.18 pp
1998 10.5 +1.5 pp
1997 9.01 +0.24 pp
1996 8.77 +0.34 pp
1995 8.43 +0.26 pp
1994 8.17 +1.77 pp
1993 6.4 +0.21 pp
1992 6.18 −0.14 pp
1991 6.33 —

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.