Youth unemployment — all countries

Youth unemployment — Timor-Leste

Youth unemployment in Timor-Leste in 2025 — 3.72%. Ranked 14 in the world out of 182. Since 1991, the indicator has fallen by 5.82 pp.

2025 3.72% +0.5 pp vs 2024
World rank 14of 182
Period maximum 13.07%2016
Period minimum 3.2%2023

Trend over time

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

Youth unemployment — Timor-Leste, 1991–202505101519911995199920032007201120152019202320251991: 9.54%1992: 9.5%1993: 9.46%1994: 9.65%1995: 9.82%1996: 9.94%1997: 10.02%1998: 10.16%1999: 10.12%2000: 10.31%2001: 9.98%2002: 9.72%2003: 9.95%2004: 10.14%2005: 9.99%2006: 9.95%2007: 9.75%2008: 9.6%2009: 9.3%2010: 9.35%2011: 9.29%2012: 9.2%2013: 9.08%2014: 8.84%2015: 8.57%2016: 13.07%2017: 11.49%2018: 9.78%2019: 7.97%2020: 6.79%2021: 4.79%2022: 3.21%2023: 3.2%2024: 3.22%2025: 3.72%
Change over the period: −5.82 pp Annual average: -0.17 pp

Comparison, 2025

How the value compares with the world and the groups this territory belongs to: Timor-Leste

Timor-Leste 3.72%
World 13.41%
South-Eastern Asia computed 9.26%
Youth unemployment — Timor-Leste, by year Timor-Leste All countries CSV XLSX
Year % Change, pp
2025 3.72 +0.5 pp
2024 3.22 +0.02 pp
2023 3.2 −0.01 pp
2022 3.21 −1.58 pp
2021 4.79 −2 pp
2020 6.79 −1.18 pp
2019 7.97 −1.81 pp
2018 9.78 −1.72 pp
2017 11.49 −1.57 pp
2016 13.07 +4.5 pp
2015 8.57 −0.27 pp
2014 8.84 −0.24 pp
2013 9.08 −0.11 pp
2012 9.2 −0.09 pp
2011 9.29 −0.06 pp
2010 9.35 +0.05 pp
2009 9.3 −0.3 pp
2008 9.6 −0.16 pp
2007 9.75 −0.2 pp
2006 9.95 −0.04 pp
2005 9.99 −0.15 pp
2004 10.14 +0.19 pp
2003 9.95 +0.23 pp
2002 9.72 −0.26 pp
2001 9.98 −0.33 pp
2000 10.31 +0.19 pp
1999 10.12 −0.03 pp
1998 10.16 +0.14 pp
1997 10.02 +0.08 pp
1996 9.94 +0.12 pp
1995 9.82 +0.17 pp
1994 9.65 +0.19 pp
1993 9.46 −0.04 pp
1992 9.5 −0.04 pp
1991 9.54 —

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.