Youth unemployment — all countries

Youth unemployment — South-Eastern Asia

Youth unemployment in South-Eastern Asia in 2025 — 9.26%. Since 1991, the indicator has risen by 2.93 pp.

2025 9.26% −0.08 pp vs 2024
World rank
Period maximum 13.91%2005
Period minimum 6.18%1992

Trend over time

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

Youth unemployment — South-Eastern Asia, 1991–20256810121419911995199920032007201120152019202320251991: 6.33%1992: 6.18%1993: 6.4%1994: 8.17%1995: 8.43%1996: 8.77%1997: 9.01%1998: 10.5%1999: 11.68%2000: 11.42%2001: 11.66%2002: 12.09%2003: 12.02%2004: 12.81%2005: 13.91%2006: 13.36%2007: 12.64%2008: 11.39%2009: 11.22%2010: 10%2011: 10.19%2012: 9.19%2013: 9.27%2014: 9.57%2015: 10.28%2016: 9.94%2017: 9.6%2018: 9.66%2019: 8.7%2020: 9.88%2021: 10.26%2022: 9.73%2023: 9.32%2024: 9.34%2025: 9.26%
Change over the period: +2.93 pp Annual average: 0.09 pp

Comparison, 2025

How the value compares with the world and the groups this territory belongs to: South-Eastern Asia

South-Eastern Asia 9.26%
World 13.41%
Youth unemployment — South-Eastern Asia, by year South-Eastern Asia All countries CSV XLSX
Year % Change, pp
2025 9.26 −0.08 pp
2024 9.34 +0.02 pp
2023 9.32 −0.41 pp
2022 9.73 −0.53 pp
2021 10.26 +0.38 pp
2020 9.88 +1.17 pp
2019 8.7 −0.96 pp
2018 9.66 +0.06 pp
2017 9.6 −0.33 pp
2016 9.94 −0.34 pp
2015 10.28 +0.71 pp
2014 9.57 +0.29 pp
2013 9.27 +0.08 pp
2012 9.19 −1 pp
2011 10.19 +0.2 pp
2010 10 −1.22 pp
2009 11.22 −0.17 pp
2008 11.39 −1.25 pp
2007 12.64 −0.71 pp
2006 13.36 −0.55 pp
2005 13.91 +1.09 pp
2004 12.81 +0.79 pp
2003 12.02 −0.06 pp
2002 12.09 +0.43 pp
2001 11.66 +0.24 pp
2000 11.42 −0.27 pp
1999 11.68 +1.18 pp
1998 10.5 +1.5 pp
1997 9.01 +0.24 pp
1996 8.77 +0.34 pp
1995 8.43 +0.26 pp
1994 8.17 +1.77 pp
1993 6.4 +0.21 pp
1992 6.18 −0.14 pp
1991 6.33

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.