Youth unemployment — all countries

Youth unemployment — Philippines

Youth unemployment in the Philippines in 2025 — 7.04%. Ranked 45 in the world out of 182. Since 1991, the indicator has fallen by 2.08 pp.

2025 7.04% +0.08 pp vs 2024
World rank 45of 182
Period maximum 10.15%2009
Period minimum 6.61%2018

Trend over time

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

Youth unemployment — Philippines, 1991–20256789101119911995199920032007201120152019202320251991: 9.12%1992: 9.39%1993: 9.48%1994: 9.35%1995: 9.24%1996: 9.16%1997: 9.18%1998: 9.36%1999: 9.48%2000: 9.54%2001: 9.42%2002: 9.17%2003: 8.92%2004: 9.06%2005: 9.25%2006: 10.02%2007: 8.74%2008: 9.84%2009: 10.15%2010: 9.74%2011: 9.48%2012: 9.36%2013: 9.17%2014: 9.47%2015: 8.51%2016: 7.63%2017: 7.38%2018: 6.61%2019: 6.7%2020: 6.99%2021: 8.43%2022: 6.81%2023: 6.91%2024: 6.96%2025: 7.04%
Change over the period: −2.08 pp Annual average: -0.06 pp

Comparison, 2025

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

Philippines 7.04%
World 13.41%
South-Eastern Asia computed 9.26%
Youth unemployment — Philippines, by year Philippines All countries CSV XLSX
Year % Change, pp
2025 7.04 +0.08 pp
2024 6.96 +0.05 pp
2023 6.91 +0.1 pp
2022 6.81 −1.62 pp
2021 8.43 +1.45 pp
2020 6.99 +0.29 pp
2019 6.7 +0.09 pp
2018 6.61 −0.77 pp
2017 7.38 −0.26 pp
2016 7.63 −0.88 pp
2015 8.51 −0.96 pp
2014 9.47 +0.3 pp
2013 9.17 −0.2 pp
2012 9.36 −0.12 pp
2011 9.48 −0.26 pp
2010 9.74 −0.41 pp
2009 10.15 +0.31 pp
2008 9.84 +1.1 pp
2007 8.74 −1.28 pp
2006 10.02 +0.77 pp
2005 9.25 +0.19 pp
2004 9.06 +0.14 pp
2003 8.92 −0.25 pp
2002 9.17 −0.25 pp
2001 9.42 −0.12 pp
2000 9.54 +0.06 pp
1999 9.48 +0.12 pp
1998 9.36 +0.18 pp
1997 9.18 +0.02 pp
1996 9.16 −0.08 pp
1995 9.24 −0.11 pp
1994 9.35 −0.13 pp
1993 9.48 +0.09 pp
1992 9.39 +0.27 pp
1991 9.12

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.