Youth unemployment — all countries

Youth unemployment — Zimbabwe

Youth unemployment in Zimbabwe in 2025 — 15.55%. Ranked 111 in the world out of 182. Since 1991, the indicator has risen by 4.91 pp.

2025 15.55% +0.12 pp vs 2024
World rank 111of 182
Period maximum 16.98%2022
Period minimum 6.95%2014

Trend over time

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

Youth unemployment — Zimbabwe, 1991–2025510152019911995199920032007201120152019202320251991: 10.63%1992: 10.92%1993: 10.99%1994: 10.88%1995: 12.24%1996: 13.59%1997: 15.34%1998: 13.97%1999: 12.89%2000: 11.94%2001: 10.86%2002: 9.89%2003: 8.95%2004: 7.84%2005: 8.1%2006: 8.24%2007: 8.53%2008: 9.03%2009: 9.11%2010: 9.09%2011: 8.96%2012: 8.17%2013: 7.61%2014: 6.95%2015: 8.02%2016: 8.95%2017: 9.83%2018: 10.69%2019: 11.72%2020: 14.24%2021: 15.21%2022: 16.98%2023: 15.33%2024: 15.43%2025: 15.55%
Change over the period: +4.91 pp Annual average: 0.14 pp

Comparison, 2025

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

Zimbabwe 15.55%
World 13.41%
Eastern Africa computed 7.77%
Youth unemployment — Zimbabwe, by year Zimbabwe All countries CSV XLSX
Year % Change, pp
2025 15.55 +0.12 pp
2024 15.43 +0.1 pp
2023 15.33 −1.65 pp
2022 16.98 +1.78 pp
2021 15.21 +0.97 pp
2020 14.24 +2.53 pp
2019 11.72 +1.03 pp
2018 10.69 +0.86 pp
2017 9.83 +0.88 pp
2016 8.95 +0.93 pp
2015 8.02 +1.07 pp
2014 6.95 −0.66 pp
2013 7.61 −0.56 pp
2012 8.17 −0.79 pp
2011 8.96 −0.13 pp
2010 9.09 −0.02 pp
2009 9.11 +0.08 pp
2008 9.03 +0.5 pp
2007 8.53 +0.3 pp
2006 8.24 +0.14 pp
2005 8.1 +0.26 pp
2004 7.84 −1.11 pp
2003 8.95 −0.93 pp
2002 9.89 −0.98 pp
2001 10.86 −1.07 pp
2000 11.94 −0.95 pp
1999 12.89 −1.08 pp
1998 13.97 −1.37 pp
1997 15.34 +1.75 pp
1996 13.59 +1.35 pp
1995 12.24 +1.36 pp
1994 10.88 −0.11 pp
1993 10.99 +0.07 pp
1992 10.92 +0.28 pp
1991 10.63

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.