Youth unemployment — all countries

Youth unemployment — Zimbabwe

Youth unemployment in Zimbabwe in 2025 — 15.55%. Ranked 111 in the world out of 182. Since 1991, the indicator has risen by 4.91 pp.

2025 15.55% +0.12 pp vs 2024
World rank 111of 182
Period maximum 16.98%2022
Period minimum 6.95%2014

Trend over time

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

Youth unemployment — Zimbabwe, 1991–2025510152019911995199920032007201120152019202320251991: 10.63%1992: 10.92%1993: 10.99%1994: 10.88%1995: 12.24%1996: 13.59%1997: 15.34%1998: 13.97%1999: 12.89%2000: 11.94%2001: 10.86%2002: 9.89%2003: 8.95%2004: 7.84%2005: 8.1%2006: 8.24%2007: 8.53%2008: 9.03%2009: 9.11%2010: 9.09%2011: 8.96%2012: 8.17%2013: 7.61%2014: 6.95%2015: 8.02%2016: 8.95%2017: 9.83%2018: 10.69%2019: 11.72%2020: 14.24%2021: 15.21%2022: 16.98%2023: 15.33%2024: 15.43%2025: 15.55%
Change over the period: +4.91 pp Annual average: 0.14 pp

Comparison, 2025

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

Zimbabwe 15.55%
World 13.41%
Eastern Africa computed 7.77%
Youth unemployment — Zimbabwe, by year Zimbabwe All countries CSV XLSX
Year % Change, pp
2025 15.55 +0.12 pp
2024 15.43 +0.1 pp
2023 15.33 −1.65 pp
2022 16.98 +1.78 pp
2021 15.21 +0.97 pp
2020 14.24 +2.53 pp
2019 11.72 +1.03 pp
2018 10.69 +0.86 pp
2017 9.83 +0.88 pp
2016 8.95 +0.93 pp
2015 8.02 +1.07 pp
2014 6.95 −0.66 pp
2013 7.61 −0.56 pp
2012 8.17 −0.79 pp
2011 8.96 −0.13 pp
2010 9.09 −0.02 pp
2009 9.11 +0.08 pp
2008 9.03 +0.5 pp
2007 8.53 +0.3 pp
2006 8.24 +0.14 pp
2005 8.1 +0.26 pp
2004 7.84 −1.11 pp
2003 8.95 −0.93 pp
2002 9.89 −0.98 pp
2001 10.86 −1.07 pp
2000 11.94 −0.95 pp
1999 12.89 −1.08 pp
1998 13.97 −1.37 pp
1997 15.34 +1.75 pp
1996 13.59 +1.35 pp
1995 12.24 +1.36 pp
1994 10.88 −0.11 pp
1993 10.99 +0.07 pp
1992 10.92 +0.28 pp
1991 10.63 —

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.