Youth unemployment — all countries

Youth unemployment — CIS

Youth unemployment in the CIS in 2025 — 8.44%. Since 1991, the indicator has fallen by 1.52 pp.

2025 8.44% −0.4 pp vs 2024
World rank
Period maximum 25.14%1998
Period minimum 8.44%2025

Trend over time

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

Youth unemployment — CIS, 1991–2025010203019911995199920032007201120152019202320251991: 9.96%1992: 10.31%1993: 11.77%1994: 15.38%1995: 18.07%1996: 19.94%1997: 22.42%1998: 25.14%1999: 23.09%2000: 20.53%2001: 18.14%2002: 16.06%2003: 16.89%2004: 16.39%2005: 14.75%2006: 14.92%2007: 13.12%2008: 13.02%2009: 16.09%2010: 15.13%2011: 13.84%2012: 13.34%2013: 12.81%2014: 12.77%2015: 14.26%2016: 14.49%2017: 14.36%2018: 14.65%2019: 13.4%2020: 14.99%2021: 14.33%2022: 12.77%2023: 10.66%2024: 8.84%2025: 8.44%
Change over the period: −1.52 pp Annual average: -0.04 pp

Comparison, 2025

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

CIS 8.44%
World 13.41%
Youth unemployment — CIS, by year CIS All countries CSV XLSX
Year % Change, pp
2025 8.44 −0.4 pp
2024 8.84 −1.82 pp
2023 10.66 −2.11 pp
2022 12.77 −1.57 pp
2021 14.33 −0.65 pp
2020 14.99 +1.59 pp
2019 13.4 −1.25 pp
2018 14.65 +0.29 pp
2017 14.36 −0.13 pp
2016 14.49 +0.23 pp
2015 14.26 +1.49 pp
2014 12.77 −0.04 pp
2013 12.81 −0.53 pp
2012 13.34 −0.5 pp
2011 13.84 −1.29 pp
2010 15.13 −0.97 pp
2009 16.09 +3.07 pp
2008 13.02 −0.09 pp
2007 13.12 −1.8 pp
2006 14.92 +0.17 pp
2005 14.75 −1.64 pp
2004 16.39 −0.5 pp
2003 16.89 +0.83 pp
2002 16.06 −2.08 pp
2001 18.14 −2.39 pp
2000 20.53 −2.56 pp
1999 23.09 −2.05 pp
1998 25.14 +2.72 pp
1997 22.42 +2.47 pp
1996 19.94 +1.87 pp
1995 18.07 +2.69 pp
1994 15.38 +3.61 pp
1993 11.77 +1.46 pp
1992 10.31 +0.35 pp
1991 9.96

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.