Youth unemployment — all countries

Youth unemployment — East Asia & Pacific

Youth unemployment in East Asia & Pacific in 2025 — 12.55%. Since 1991, the indicator has risen by 7.44 pp.

2025 12.55% +0.38 pp vs 2024
World rank
Period maximum 12.55%2025
Period minimum 5.11%1991

Trend over time

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

Youth unemployment — East Asia & Pacific, 1991–202546810121419911995199920032007201120152019202320251991: 5.11%1992: 5.17%1993: 5.74%1994: 6.52%1995: 6.81%1996: 7.18%1997: 7.49%1998: 8.21%1999: 8.67%2000: 8.53%2001: 9.31%2002: 10.02%2003: 10.43%2004: 10.5%2005: 10.81%2006: 10.52%2007: 10.16%2008: 10.17%2009: 10.48%2010: 9.94%2011: 10.03%2012: 9.81%2013: 9.92%2014: 10.08%2015: 10.37%2016: 10.17%2017: 9.91%2018: 9.49%2019: 9.66%2020: 11.21%2021: 11.2%2022: 12.11%2023: 12.4%2024: 12.17%2025: 12.55%
Change over the period: +7.44 pp Annual average: 0.22 pp

Comparison, 2025

How the value compares with the world and the groups this territory belongs to: East Asia & Pacific

East Asia & Pacific 12.55%
World 13.41%
Youth unemployment — East Asia & Pacific, by year East Asia & Pacific All countries CSV XLSX
Year % Change, pp
2025 12.55 +0.38 pp
2024 12.17 −0.23 pp
2023 12.4 +0.29 pp
2022 12.11 +0.91 pp
2021 11.2 −0.01 pp
2020 11.21 +1.55 pp
2019 9.66 +0.17 pp
2018 9.49 −0.42 pp
2017 9.91 −0.26 pp
2016 10.17 −0.2 pp
2015 10.37 +0.29 pp
2014 10.08 +0.16 pp
2013 9.92 +0.11 pp
2012 9.81 −0.22 pp
2011 10.03 +0.09 pp
2010 9.94 −0.54 pp
2009 10.48 +0.31 pp
2008 10.17 +0 pp
2007 10.16 −0.35 pp
2006 10.52 −0.29 pp
2005 10.81 +0.31 pp
2004 10.5 +0.07 pp
2003 10.43 +0.42 pp
2002 10.02 +0.7 pp
2001 9.31 +0.79 pp
2000 8.53 −0.14 pp
1999 8.67 +0.46 pp
1998 8.21 +0.72 pp
1997 7.49 +0.31 pp
1996 7.18 +0.38 pp
1995 6.81 +0.29 pp
1994 6.52 +0.78 pp
1993 5.74 +0.57 pp
1992 5.17 +0.05 pp
1991 5.11

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.