Youth unemployment — all countries

Youth unemployment — Singapore

Youth unemployment in Singapore in 2025 — 6.78%. Ranked 41 in the world out of 182. Since 1991, the indicator has risen by 2.91 pp.

2025 6.78% +0.45 pp vs 2024
World rank 41of 182
Period maximum 12.49%2009
Period minimum 3.87%1991

Trend over time

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

Youth unemployment — Singapore, 1991–202505101519911995199920032007201120152019202320251991: 3.87%1992: 6.7%1993: 7.12%1994: 7.33%1995: 6.89%1996: 8.44%1997: 5.29%1998: 7.67%1999: 9.2%2000: 6.83%2001: 7.4%2002: 10.77%2003: 9.85%2004: 10.51%2005: 10.38%2006: 8.63%2007: 8.5%2008: 8.81%2009: 12.49%2010: 9.41%2011: 8.87%2012: 8.53%2013: 8.9%2014: 8.38%2015: 8.89%2016: 8.72%2017: 9.34%2018: 8.44%2019: 7.63%2020: 10.56%2021: 9.5%2022: 7.92%2023: 8.52%2024: 6.33%2025: 6.78%
Change over the period: +2.91 pp Annual average: 0.09 pp

Comparison, 2025

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

Singapore 6.78%
World 13.41%
South-Eastern Asia computed 9.26%
High-income countries computed 11.17%
Youth unemployment — Singapore, by year Singapore All countries CSV XLSX
Year % Change, pp
2025 6.78 +0.45 pp
2024 6.33 −2.19 pp
2023 8.52 +0.59 pp
2022 7.92 −1.58 pp
2021 9.5 −1.06 pp
2020 10.56 +2.93 pp
2019 7.63 −0.81 pp
2018 8.44 −0.9 pp
2017 9.34 +0.61 pp
2016 8.72 −0.17 pp
2015 8.89 +0.52 pp
2014 8.38 −0.53 pp
2013 8.9 +0.37 pp
2012 8.53 −0.34 pp
2011 8.87 −0.55 pp
2010 9.41 −3.08 pp
2009 12.49 +3.68 pp
2008 8.81 +0.31 pp
2007 8.5 −0.14 pp
2006 8.63 −1.75 pp
2005 10.38 −0.13 pp
2004 10.51 +0.67 pp
2003 9.85 −0.92 pp
2002 10.77 +3.37 pp
2001 7.4 +0.57 pp
2000 6.83 −2.37 pp
1999 9.2 +1.53 pp
1998 7.67 +2.38 pp
1997 5.29 −3.15 pp
1996 8.44 +1.55 pp
1995 6.89 −0.44 pp
1994 7.33 +0.21 pp
1993 7.12 +0.42 pp
1992 6.7 +2.83 pp
1991 3.87

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.