Monthly Labor Review • July 2009 

Youth Labor Market

A portrait of the youth labor 

market in 13 countries, 1980–2007

Gary Martin

Gary Martin is an economist in 

the Division of International Labor Comparisons, Bureau of Labor Statistics. E-mail: ILChelp@

bls.gov

A relatively high unemployment rate for young people

has been a persistent problem in industrialized countries

in recent decades; still, the number of youths who are

unemployed has been falling with declining youth

populations and more years spent in education

I

n most industrialized countries, relatively high rates of joblessness among 

young persons have persisted for many 

years, although with considerable variation across the countries. In recent decades, 

the unemployment rate for persons under 

the age of 25 in France regularly has been 

greater than 20 percent, while in Italy it 

rose to more than 30 percent, and in Spain 

it has surpassed 40 percent. Germany and 

Japan had very low youth unemployment 

rates at the beginning of the 1980s—

around 4 percent. However, more recently, 

even Germany, with its apprenticeship system, and Japan, with its close cooperation 

between schools and businesses, have had 

youth unemployment rates similar to those 

in the United States, in or near the 10-percent range. The box on this page presents 

the various definitions of “youth” in the 

countries examined in this article.

In the first years of the 21st century, youths 

in the United States experienced a small decline in unemployment rates, whereas their 

counterparts in Japan, France, Germany, and 

Sweden saw a sharp increase. Young people 

in Italy and Spain had very high unemployment rates throughout the 1980–2007 period. These trends generally follow the trends 

in each country’s overall unemployment 

rate. 

This article analyzes the youth unemployment picture in a selected group of industrialized countries over the 1980–2007 period. The 

data are primarily from a database compiled by 

the Organization for Economic Cooperation 

and Development (OECD) and, with few exceptions, are annual averages based on national 

labor force surveys. In one case, Canada, BLS

makes adjustments to the country’s national 

data to enhance comparability with U.S. definitions. Besides allowing comparisons of unemployment by age group, the OECD database 

Definitions of “youth” in the 

13 countries

For employment and unemployment purposes, “youth” is generally defined as the 

period from the age when mandatory 

schooling ends through age 24. For most 

countries, that means the time span from 

15 years old through 24 years old. Of the 

countries in the current study, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United 

States have the youngest youth age: 16 years. 

In Italy, it was 14 before 1990, but has been 

16 years old from that year forward. These 

ages, then, are the actual earliest ones referred to in the table headings “15–19 years” 

and “under 25 years.”
Youth Labor Market

 Monthly Labor Review • July 2009

permits comparisons of labor force participation rates and 

of the proportion that young people constitute of unemployment, the labor force, and the population. In addition, 

the surveys provide statistics on the duration of unemployment by age group. The portrait of the youth labor 

market situation is filled in further with less widely available statistics—with regard to both time and place—on 

combining school and work, youth living arrangements, 

and job turnover rates. Finally, an indicator of “idleness” 

tracks trends and levels for the number of young people 

who are neither in school nor at work.

The topic of international comparisons of youth unemployment was last addressed in this Review in 1981, in 

an article that compared the experiences of nine advanced 

industrial countries from 1960 to 1979.1 At the beginning 

of the 1960s, only the United States and Canada had double-digit youth unemployment rates. Italy soon joined the 

group, and by the end of the period Australia, France, and 

Great Britain also experienced rates of youth unemployment that reached two digits. 

Of the four additional countries chosen for the current 

article—Spain, Ireland, the Netherlands, and the Republic 

of Korea (simply, Korea hereafter)—only Spain had youth 

unemployment rates in recent years higher than those in 

the United States. The relatively low youth unemployment 

rates of Ireland and the Netherlands are of recent vintage; 

rates in those countries were greater than 20 percent in the 

mid-1980s. Korea has had youth unemployment rates that 

fairly closely track those of the United States. The inclusion 

of these additional countries affords a greater perspective 

on the youth unemployment phenomenon in industrialized 

countries and also reflects the wide availability of comparable measures of unemployment compiled from periodic 

labor force surveys.

Data sources and comparability

We may generally rule out differences in definitions and 

measurement methods as an explanation for the sharply 

differing rates of youth unemployment among countries. 

Increasingly, statistical agencies are using a monthly or 

quarterly labor force survey to measure employment and 

unemployment. The greatest departures from this methodology are for the earliest years for Germany (West 

Germany before 1991 in the data) and the Netherlands. 

Before 1984 for Germany and before 1983 for the Netherlands, unemployment estimates were based upon the 

registered unemployed, for the month of September for 

Germany and annual averages of monthly registrations 

for the Netherlands. Since 1984, Germany’s annual unemployment estimates have been derived from its April 

microcensus (household survey) and the European Union 

Labor Force Survey compiled by the Statistics Office of 

the European Communities (EUROSTAT). The data for 

the Netherlands are from the latter source exclusively.

Perhaps the next-greatest departure from the methodological norm is that for the United Kingdom, whose 

employment and unemployment statistics since 1992 come 

from a combination of a quarterly labor force survey and 

administrative sources. Before 1992, they were from the 

Census of Employment and the Annual Labor Force Survey. France’s employment and unemployment data are primarily from the Labor Force Survey, which has been quarterly only since 2003. Prior to that time, it was conducted 

annually in March.

The OECD data for Ireland, Italy, and Spain also are from 

quarterly national labor force surveys. Before 1998, Ireland 

conducted an annual survey in April. Since 1986, Sweden 

has conducted a monthly survey, as have the remaining five 

countries for the entire period. Although it now conducts a 

monthly survey, Sweden is unique in a couple of ways. First, it 

has excluded from its unemployment statistics full-time students who are seeking work and who are available for work. 

The OECD, however, adjusts the unemployment statistics 

for Sweden to include such students. Beginning in October 

2008, those adjustments no longer have been necessary, because Sweden’s unemployment criteria now include students 

looking for a job. Second, Sweden’s labor force statistics also 

apply only to those aged 16 through 64 years. Before 1986, 

it was 16 through 74. For the other countries, the population 

range is open ended after the year that compulsory schooling 

ends. The OECD makes no adjustment for this difference in 

age limits.

Data for Canada are adjusted by BLS to include full-time 

students who are seeking, and are available for, full-time work, 

but whom Canada omits from the country’s labor force.2

Long-term unemployment trends

Economic growth in the advanced industrial economies 

slackened in the mid-seventies while the proportion of 

young people in the labor force grew, increasing the competition for jobs. The proportion of youths in the workforce 

since that time has been reduced by declining birthrates 

and by a general increase in the number of years spent in 

formal schooling.3 Nevertheless, with youth unemployment 

rates in the United States and Canada hardly changed from 

what they were in the early 1960s, they are now surpassed 

by those of several other industrial countries. 

Overall unemployment rates have been higher in recent 
Monthly Labor Review • July 2009 

decades than they were in the 1960s and 1970s, especially 

in Sweden, Japan, Germany, Italy, and France, while the 

rates for the United States and Canada—apart from business-cycle fluctuations—had hardly changed through 2007. 

In the 1960s and 1970s, the overall unemployment rate in 

the two North American countries was generally in the 5-

percent to 7-percent range; in Sweden and Japan it never 

reached 3 percent, in Germany it rarely surpassed 3 percent, 

and in Italy and France it had climbed only to 4.4 percent 

and 6.1 percent, respectively, by the end of the period.4

Table 1 shows the trend of the unemployment rate since 

1980. Only in Sweden, Germany, and Japan has there been 

a noticeable upward trend. For most of the 13 countries 

examined, a big unemployment jump came between 1980 

and 1985, with Korea, the United States and the United 

Kingdom notable exceptions. In general, in all 13 countries 

youth unemployment rate trends have tracked those of the 

rest of the workforce.

Although, except in Germany, the trends may be much 

the same, the level of youth unemployment rates has been 

substantially higher across the board than those for persons 

aged 25 years and older, usually by a multiple between 2 

and 3. (See table 2.) Italy is the exception on the high side, 

where the multiple has been around 4 in recent years. 

Whereas the conventional method of comparing youth 

and adult unemployment rates—that is, using the ratio of 

the former to the latter—might be convenient for comparison purposes, it does not tell the whole story.5

 The historical example of Sweden shows why. In Sweden, the numbers 

of unemployed youths increased much more than did the 

numbers of unemployed adults, but from the ratio alone, it 

appears that the relative unemployment situation of youths 

was the same in 2007 as in 1980. Adult unemployment was 

extremely low in 1980, so the few percentage points higher 

that youth unemployment rates were resulted in a relatively 

large ratio between the two. The ratio remained large in 2007, 

but with the adult unemployment rate much higher than it 

was in 1980 in both countries, the numbers involved were 

much greater.6

In table 3, the unemployment rates of those 25 years and 

older are subtracted from the various youth unemployment 

rates for the purpose of comparison. In 2007, Italy and 

Sweden still exhibited, by far, the highest relative rates of 

youth unemployment among the countries compared, but 

the degree to which the youth unemployment situation had 

worsened in Sweden is clearly shown, while the improvement in Italy was not as great as comparisons of the ratios 

of youth to adult unemployment rates would indicate. According to the table, the relative youth unemployment situation in France also was worse in 2007 than in 1980, not 

better, as would be indicated by the change in the ratios of 

youth to adult unemployment rates.

Why higher youth unemployment?

In almost all instances, the unemployment rate for teenagers (aged 15 or 16 years to 19 years) is consistently higher 

than that for 20- to 24-year-olds. Germany is the lone exception. All the reasons that make youth unemployment 

higher than the norm could be expected to make those who 

are the youngest within the youth range have the higher 

unemployment rate.

Youth unemployment rates are relatively higher for a 

number of reasons.7 First, young people are among the 

most vulnerable during an economic downturn when 

workers are being laid off and there are hiring slowdowns 

or freezes. Youths typically have the least seniority, the 

least work experience, and the least amount of company 

training invested in them, and they are more likely to be 

working on a short-term contract.8 They are, therefore, the 

most likely to be let go. Indeed, even if, on the one hand, 

there were no layoffs at all, but only a general hiring freeze, 

unemployment among young people would still grow as 

they attempted to move from school into the labor force 

upon completing their education; and if, on the other 

hand, employers were forced by economic conditions simply to be more discriminating in their hiring, those with 

no experience or with very little experience would be the 

least likely to be hired, and these, too, are most likely to be 

the young. Numerous studies have shown that youth unemployment rates are more sensitive to the business cycle 

than are adult unemployment rates.9

Second, whatever the state of the economy, young people 

simply have less experience in looking for work. Lack of experience at work is counteracted to a degree by the willingness and ability of youths to work for less money, but lack 

of experience in the process of finding a job is not.

Third, young people, generally with fewer resources than 

older workers and a stronger financial attachment to family, tend to be less mobile. Consequently, they are somewhat less able or willing to move to places where more jobs 

might be available. This is especially true for those in the 

15- to 19-year-old category, and in countries where attachment to home is particularly strong, the more important 

that factor would be.

Fourth, young people, with fewer financial obligations 

and often with family support, can typically afford to take 

immediate employment less seriously—especially as family 

sizes have shrunk and the pressure to get a job to help support the family has subsided. The younger the prospective 
Youth Labor Market

 Monthly Labor Review • July 2009

 United States Ireland 

1980.................................... 7.1 13.8 17.8 11.5 5.1 1981 ................................. 10.5 14.7 19.3

1985.................................... 7.2 13.6 18.6 11.1 5.6 1985 ................................. 16.7 

1990.................................... 5.6 11.2 15.5 8.8 4.4 1990 ................................. 13.0 17.7 

1995.................................... 5.6 12.1 17.3 9.1 4.3 1995 ................................. 12.2 19.

2000.................................... 4.0 9.3 13.1 7.2 3.0 2000 ................................. 4.

2007.................................... 4.6 10.5 15.7 8.2 3.6 2007 ................................. 

 Canada Italy 

1980.................................... 7.3 12.7 16.3 10.4 5.3 1980 ................................. 7.

1985.................................... 10.2 15.9 18.8 14.5 8.5 1985 ................................. 10.3 3

1990.................................... 7.7 12.0 13.8 10.9 6.7 1990 ................................ . 11.4 31.5 39

1995.................................... 8.6 13.9 17.1 12.0 7.6 1995 ................................. 11.5 31

2000.................................... 6.1 11.7 15.4 9.4 5.1 2000 ................................. 10.5 29.7 

2007.................................... 5.3 10.1 13.6 8.0 4.3 2007 ................................. 6.

 Australia Netherlands 

1980.................................... 6.1 12.5 17.1 8.9 3.7 1980 ................................. 4

1985.................................... 8.3 15.2 20.3 11.5 5.9 1985 ................................. 13.1 2

1990.................................... 6.9 13.0 16.9 10.2 5.1 1990 ................................. 7.4 11.1

1995.................................... 8.5 15.4 20.6 12.0 6.6 1995 ................................. 7.0 1

2000.................................... 6.3 12.1 16.1 9.1 4.9 2000 ................................. 3.0 6

2007.................................... 4.4 9.4 13.8 6.3 3.2 2007 ................................

 Japan Spain 

1980.................................... 2.0 3.6 4.1 3.4 1.8 1980 ................................. 11.1 2

1985.................................... 2.6 4.8 7.3 4.1 2.3 1985 ................................. 21.0

1990.................................... 2.1 4.3 6.6 3.7 1.8 1990 ................................. 16.0 30.

1995.................................... 3.2 6.1 8.2 5.7 2.7 1995 ................................. 22.7 40.

2000.................................... 4.8 9.2 12.1 8.6 4.2 2000 ................................. 13.9 25.3 3

2007.................................... 3.9 7.7 8.7 7.5 3.5 2007 ................................. 8.3 18.2 28.

 Korea, Republic of Sweden 

1980.................................... 5.2 11.5 13.3 10.3 3.4 1980 ................................. 

1985.................................... 4.0 10.0 11.1 9.6 2.8 1985 ................................. 3.1 7.2

1990.................................... 2.5 7.0 9.2 6.3 1.7 1990 ................................. 1.8

1995.................................... 2.1 6.3 7.9 6.0 1.4 1995 ................................. 9.1 19.5

2000.................................... 4.4 10.8 14.5 9.9 3.7 2000 ................................. 5.8 11.

2007.................................... 3.2 8.8 9.1 8.8 2.8 2007 ................................. 6.1 18.9 29.

 France United Kingdom 

1980.................................... 6.1 15.1 24.5 12.2 4.3 1984 ................................. 11.8 19.7

1985.................................... 10.2 25.6 34.0 23.7 7.4 1985 ................................. 11.3 17

1990.................................... 9.2 19.1 19.0 19.2 7.8 1990 ................................. 6.8 10.1 11.6 9

1995.................................... 11.6 25.9 24.3 26.1 10.1 1995 ................................. 8.6 15

2000.................................... 10.0 20.7 22.2 20.5 9.0 2000 ................................. 5.5 11.7 

2007.................................... 8.0 18.7 25.6 16.8 6.7 2007 ................................. 5.2 14.4

 Germany 

1980.................................... 3.2 4.1 3.

1985.................................... 7.2 10.0 11.2 9.

1990.................................... 4.7 4.4 

1995.................................... 8.1 8.2 7.0 8.7 8.1

2000.................................... 7.7 8.4 8.0 8.6 

2007.................................... 8.6 11.7 12.8 11.2 8.

Table 1.

Country and year

25 years 

and 

older 

Unemployment rate, by age, 13 countries, selected years, 1980–2007

Under

25 years

20–24 

years

15–19 

years

Total

[In percent]

Country and year Total Under

25 years

15–19 

years

20–24 

years

25 years 

and 

older

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 

“Labor Force Statistics MEI: Harmonized Unemployment Rates and Levels 

(HURs),” stats.oecd.org/WBOS/Index.aspx?QueryName=251&QueryType=

View; Statistics Canada (unpublished).

NOTE: Dash indicates data not available.
Monthly Labor Review • July 2009

 United States Ireland 

1980............................................................. 2.7 3.5 2.3 1981 ...................................................... 1.7 

1985............................................................. 2.4 3.3 2.0 1985 ...................................................... 

1990............................................................. 2.5 3.5 2.0 1990 ...................................................... 1.5 

1995............................................................. 2.8 4.0 2.1 1995 ...................................................... 1.8 2

2000............................................................. 3.1 4.4 2.4 2000 ...................................................... 1.

2007............................................................. 2.9 4.3 2.3 2007 ...................................................... 

 Canada Italy 

1980............................................................. 2.4 3.1 2.0 1980 ...................................................... 7.2 9.

1985............................................................. 1.9 2.2 1.7 1985 ...................................................... 6.7

1990............................................................. 1.8 2.1 1.6 1990 ...................................................... 4

1995............................................................. 1.8 2.3 1.6 1995 ....................................................

2000............................................................. 2.3 3.0 1.8 2000 ...................................................... 

2007............................................................. 2.4 3.2 1.9 2007 ...................................................... 

 Australia Netherlands 

1980............................................................. 3.3 3.9 3.0 1980 ...................................................... 

1985............................................................. 3.6 4.0 3.5 1985 ...................................................

1990............................................................. 4.1 5.4 3.7 1990 ...................................................... 1

1995............................................................. 4.4 5.5 4.2 1995 .....................................................

2000............................................................. 2.9 3.9 2.7 2000 ...................................................... 2.5 3

2007............................................................. 3.1 3.2 3.1 2007 ...................................................... 2

 Japan Spain 

1980............................................................. 3.4 4.6 2.4 1980 .....................................................

1985............................................................. 2.6 3.4 2.0 1985 ....................................................

1990............................................................. 2.6 3.3 2.0 1990 ...................................................... 2

1995............................................................. 2.3 3.1 1.8 1995 ...................................................... 2.1

2000............................................................. 2.5 3.3 1.9 2000 ...................................................... 2.1 2.

2007............................................................. 2.9 4.3 1.9 2007 ...................................................... 2.6 

 Korea, Republic of Sweden 

1980............................................................. 2.0 2.3 1.9 1980 ...................................................... 4.4

1985............................................................. 2.0 3.1 1.8 1985 ...................................................... 

1990............................................................. 2.4 3.8 2.1 1990 ...................................................... 

1995............................................................. 2.3 3.0 2.1 1995 ...................................................... 2.

2000............................................................. 2.2 2.9 2.0 2000 ...................................................... 2.3 3.

2007............................................................. 2.2 2.5 2.1 2007 ...................................................... 4.

 France United Kingdom 

1980............................................................. 3.5 5.7 2.8 1984 ...................................................... 2.

1985............................................................. 3.5 4.6 3.2 1985 ...................................................... 

1990............................................................. 2.5 2.4 2.5 1990 ...................................................... 1.7 

1995............................................................. 2.6 2.4 2.6 1995 ...................................................... 

2000............................................................. 2.3 2.5 2.3 2000 ...................................................... 2

2007............................................................. 2.8 3.8 2.5 2007 ...................................................... 4.0

 Germany 

1980............................................................. 1.4 1.

1985............................................................. 1.6 1.7

1990............................................................. .9 1.0 .9 

1995............................................................. 1.0 .9 1.1

2000............................................................. 1.1 1.0 1.1 

2007............................................................. 1.4 1.

Table 2.

Country and year

Ratio of youth unemployment rate to unemployment rate for those 25 years and older, 13 countries, selected 

years, 1980–2007

Under

25 years

20–24 

years

15–19 

years Country and year Under25 years

15–19 

years

20–24 

years

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 

“Labor Force Statistics MEI: Harmonized Unemployment Rates and Levels 

(HURs),” stats.oecd.org/WBOS/Index.aspx?QueryName=251&QueryType=

View; Statistics Canada (unpublished).

NOTE: Dash indicates data not available.
Youth Labor Market

  Monthly Labor Review • Jul  20

 United States Ireland

1980 .............................................................. 8.8 12.7 6.5 1981 ....................................................... 5.9

1985 .............................................................. 8.0 13.0 5.5 1985 ....................................................... 9.

1990 .............................................................. 6.8 11.2 4.4 1990 ....................................................... 6

1995 .............................................................. 7.7 13.0 4.7 1995 ....................................................... 8

2000 .............................................................. 6.4 10.1 4.2 2000. ....................................................... 2.7

2007 .............................................................. 6.9 12.1 4.5 2007 ....................................................... 

 Canada Italy

1980 .............................................................. 7.4 11.0 5.1 1980 ....................................................... 21.7 28.0

1985 .............................................................. 7.4 10.3 6.0 1985 ....................................................... 28.

1990 .............................................................. 5.3 7.1 4.2 1990 ....................................................... 24.

1995 .............................................................. 6.3 9.5 4.4 1995 ....................................................... 2

2000 .............................................................. 6.6 10.3 4.3 2000 ....................................................... 21.

2007 .............................................................. 5.8 9.3 3.7 2007 ....................................................... 15

 Australia Netherlands

1980 .............................................................. 8.0 9.9 6.9 1980 ....................................................... 6.1

1985 .............................................................. 7.3 8.3 6.9 1985 ......................................................

1990 .............................................................. 5.3 7.5 4.6 1990 ......................................................

1995 .............................................................. 4.8 6.4 4.5 1995 .....................................................

2000 .............................................................. 7.2 10.8 6.3 2000 ....................................................... 3.

2007 .............................................................. 6.0 6.2 5.9 2007 ....................................................... 

 Japan Spain

1980 .............................................................. 8.8 13.4 5.2 1980 ....................................................... 18.

1985 .............................................................. 9.3 14.4 5.6 1985 ......................................................

1990 .............................................................. 7.9 11.8 5.1 1990 ....................................................... 18.0 19.3

1995 .............................................................. 8.7 14.0 5.4 1995 ....................................................... 21.

2000 .............................................................. 7.2 11.2 4.2 2000 ....................................................... 13.3 2

2007 .............................................................. 6.1 10.5 3.0 2007 ....................................................... 11.1 21.

 Korea, Republic of Sweden 

1980 .............................................................. 1.8 2.3 1.6 1980 ....................................................... 4.8 

1985 .............................................................. 2.4 5.0 1.8 1985 ......................................................

1990 .............................................................. 2.6 4.9 1.9 1990 ....................................................... 3.3

1995 .............................................................. 3.4 5.5 3.0 1995 ....................................................... 1

2000 .............................................................. 5.0 7.9 4.4 2000 ....................................................... 6

2007 .............................................................. 4.2 5.2 4.0 2007 ....................................................... 14

 France United Kingdom

1980 .............................................................. 10.8 20.2 7.9 1984 ....................................................... 10.2 12.8 

1985 .............................................................. 18.2 26.6 16.3 1985 .......................................................

1990 .............................................................. 11.4 11.2 11.4 1990 .......................................................

1995 .............................................................. 15.8 14.2 16.0 1995 ....................................................... 8.0

2000 .............................................................. 11.7 13.1 11.4 2000 ....................................................... 7.3 1

2007 .............................................................. 12.0 18.9 10.1 2007 ....................................................... 10.8 17.1 7.0

 Germany 

1980 .............................................................. 1.2 .9 1.

1985 .............................................................. 3.6 4.

1990 .............................................................. –.4 –.1 

1995 .............................................................. .1 –1.2 

2000 .............................................................. .7 .4 .

2007 .............................................................. 3.5 

Table 3.

Country and year

Youth unemployment rate minus unemployment rate for those 25 years and older, 13 countries, selected 

years, 1980–2007

Under

25 years

20–24 

years

15–19 

years

Country and year Under

25 years

15–19 

years

20–24 

years

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 

[Difference, in percentage points]

“Labor Force Statistics MEI: Harmonized Unemployment Rates and Levels 

(HURs),” stats.oecd.org/WBOS/Index.aspx?QueryName=251&QueryType=

View; Statistics Canada (unpublished).

NOTE: Dash indicates data not available.
Monthly Labor Review • July 2009

workers, the less serious they tend to be about paid work. If 

they are students, the jobs they are likely to get, or to lose, are 

typically not full-time, career-track jobs, and they usually pay 

very little. Young people sacrifice less by passing up such jobs 

than do older people, whose search for employment is typically for career-type jobs. Whether the jobs are career track 

jobs or not, young people with financial support from parents 

can usually afford to wait longer for just the right job to come 

along. Thus, in this instance, a higher rate of unemployment 

actually may reflect economic strength, rather than economic 

weakness, for youths.10

Schooling on the rise

A common phenomenon throughout much of the industrialized world has been a steady increase in the average number 

of years spent in formal schooling, causing a rise in the average 

age in which serious, full-time employment begins. The following tabulation shows the percentage of 18- and 22-yearolds in 10 countries who were attending school in 1984 (1983 

for the Netherlands and 1986 for Spain) and 1997 (1994 for 

Australia and 1996 for Canada, Germany, and Ireland):11

 18-year-olds 22-year-olds

 1984 1997 1984 1997

United States............... 58.6 70.5 22.5 35.6

Canada ........................ 59.1 73.0 20.9 38.1

Australia ...................... 27.5 46.4 10.5 18.8

France.......................... 58.0 83.5 15.9 43.7

Germany...................... 40.2 45.0 21.8 24.9

Ireland ......................... 46.1 69.8 9.7 22.2

Italy ............................. 55.3 71.8 21.9 34.8

Netherlands................. 67.0 75.6 31.9 48.3

Spain ........................... 49.1 73.1 21.5 44.2

United Kingdom ......... 30.3 38.2 12.0 18.2

 Country

The rise in the average age of schooling may be due to increasing educational requirements at the workplace, either 

because doing the work actually requires more education 

or because employers increasingly are using education as a 

screening device. Increased schooling also might be related 

to shrinking family size, making higher education more affordable. Outside the United States, in particular, it could be 

a reaction to the general deterioration of the job market for 

young people.12

The result of the increased number of years of formal 

schooling is a delay in labor force participation: despite overall increases in the rate of labor force participation in most 

countries, the rate of youth labor force participation has fallen 

in almost all of the countries. (See table 4.) Youths in Korea, 

Sweden, Italy, and France have experienced at least doubledigit declines in participation rates since 1980. The doubledigit decline in the United Kingdom is since 1984. Young 

persons in the United States, Germany, Ireland, and Spain all 

had large declines in labor force activity. With the exception 

of the Netherlands, which saw a considerable increase over 

the 1980–2007 period, the remaining countries either had 

slightly declining or virtually level youth participation rates.

The decline in participation rates for youths was occurring while total participation rates were increasing in every 

country but Japan, Italy, and France, in each of which there 

were very small overall decreases. The Netherlands countered 

the general trend, with an even greater increase in its youth 

participation rate than in its overall participation rate. The 

Netherlands also is experiencing a sizeable increase in the 

percentage of young people pursuing formal education. The 

apparent contradiction is resolved by noting that in recent 

years part-time employment in that country has become a 

common feature of the labor market. Part-time employment 

is particularly suited to the schedules of students.13

The level of participation in the labor force by young people 

under 25 years varied greatly among countries in 2007, from a 

rate of 71 percent in Australia and the Netherlands to 28 percent in Korea. The 13 countries examined in this article can be 

divided rather clearly into three categories: high, medium, and 

low youth labor force participation. In the English-speaking 

countries, for the most part it is expected that one will begin 

work for pay rather early in life, and that outlook is reflected 

in the fact that 4 (the United States, Canada, Australia, and 

the United Kingdom) of the 5 English-speaking countries 

have teenage labor force participation rates greater than 40 

percent and young adult rates greater than 59 percent. These 4 

countries are joined by the Netherlands in the high category. 

Ireland is the one English-speaking country that falls into the 

middle group, where it is joined by Sweden, Spain, and Germany. The countries with low youth labor force participation 

are Korea, Italy, France, and Japan.

There are substantial differences among the countries with 

respect to the degree to which students combine school and 

work. Chart 1 shows the percentage of employed students 

out of the total population of students in 10 countries in 

2006. In Italy, Spain, and France, a student is quite unlikely 

to have a job on the side; in the Netherlands and Canada, 

the likelihood is much greater. In the United States, about 

one-third of students combine school and work.

The Dutch example illustrates how the increase in schooling of persons aged 15 to 24 years has changed the youth 

labor picture across the board. Chart 1 shows that, except in 

Germany and France, much of the employment of students 

is part-time employment.
Youth Labor Market

10 Monthly Labor Review • July 2009

United States Ireland 

1980.................................... 63.7 68.1 56.7 77.2 62.5 1981.................................

1985.................................... 64.8 68.3 54.5 78.2 64.0 1985..................................

1990.................................... 66.5 67.3 53.7 77.8 66.4 1990..................................

1995.................................... 66.6 66.3 53.5 76.6 66.7 1995..............................

2000.................................... 67.1 65.8 52.0 77.8 67.3 2000................................... 

2007.................................... 66.0 59.4 41.3 74.4 67.3 2007................................

 Canada Italy 

1980.................................... 65.0 72.6 62.4 80.8 62.6 1980..................................

1985.................................... 65.9 71.7 58.9 80.1 64.4 1985...................................

1990.................................... 67.4 72.8 62.8 80.3 66.2 1990...................................

1995.................................... 64.9 66.5 55.0 75.6 64.6 1995..............................

2000.................................... 66.0 68.1 57.7 76.6 65.6 2000..................................

2007.................................... 67.7 70.4 60.9 77.8 67.2 2007................................... 48.9 30.

 Australia Netherlands 

1980.................................... 61.3 72.2 63.4 81.2 58.0 1980................................... 49

1985.................................... 60.8 71.2 59.9 82.3 57.9 1985................................... 49.8 

1990.................................... 63.7 72.1 60.4 84.2 61.6 1990...................................

1995.................................... 63.7 71.8 59.2 83.2 61.8 1995................................... 59

2000.................................... 63.3 70.6 59.3 82.3 61.8 2000................................... 63

2007.................................... 65.0 70.8 59.5 81.9 63.8 2007................................... 64.7

 Japan Spain 

1980.................................... 63.2 43.4 17.9 69.8 67.6 1980.................................

1985.................................... 63.0 42.9 17.0 71.0 67.4 1985................................... 

1990.................................... 63.4 44.1 18.1 73.4 67.9 1990................................... 

1995.................................... 63.4 47.6 17.0 74.1 66.8 1995...................................

2000.................................... 62.4 47.0 17.5 72.7 65.1 2000................................... 

2007.................................... 60.4 44.9 16.3 69.7 62.6 2007...................................

 Korea, Republic of Sweden 

1980.................................... 59.0 45.1 30.6 63.1 64.6 1980................................... 71.

1985.................................... 56.6 35.6 17.5 58.5 64.1 1985.................................

1990.................................... 60.0 35.0 14.6 62.8 68.2 1990................................... 7

1995.................................... 61.9 36.9 12.0 63.1 69.1 1995................................... 70.5

2000.................................... 61.2 33.0 12.1 57.8 67.9 2000................................... 70.8 5

2007.................................... 61.8 28.1 7.2 52.6 67.8 2007................................... 72.3 57.

 France United Kingdom 

1980.................................... 57.0 47.5 22.1 74.0 59.5 1984................................... 62.0

1985.................................... 55.9 43.9 16.2 71.8 58.9 1985................................... 62.2 7

1990.................................... 54.8 36.4 11.4 61.3 58.9 1990................................... 64.0

1995.................................... 54.5 29.5 6.6 51.0 59.5 1995................................

2000.................................... 54.8 29.3 8.7 51.2 59.5 2000................................... 62

2007.................................... 56.3 37.0 15.3 61.8 60.0 2007..................................

 Germany 

1980.................................... 55.5 59.2

1985.................................... 54.9 59.2 

1990.................................... 57.4 60.4 39

1995.................................... 57.4 53.5 31.

2000.................................... 57.6 51.5 3

2007.................................... 59.2 52.0 32

Table 4.

Country and year

25 years 

and 

older

Labor force participation rate, by age, 13 countries, selected years, 1980–2007

Under

25 years

20–24 

years

15–19 

years

Total

[In percent]

Country and year Total Under

25 years

15–19 

years

20–24 

years

25 years 

and 

older

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 

“Labor Force Statistics MEI: Harmonized Unemployment Rates and Levels 

(HURs),” stats.oecd.org/WBOS/Index.aspx?QueryName=251&QueryType=

View; Statistics Canada (unpublished).

NOTE: Dash indicates data not available.
Monthly Labor Review • July 2009 11

Although the increased participation in formal education might be associated with higher unemployment rates 

for young people, the achievement of more education, by 

contrast, should make young people more employable in 

the years ahead. Large increases in the percentages of those 

who have completed at least upper secondary-level education have occurred in Korea, Ireland, Spain, France, Italy, 

and Australia. The following tabulation shows the percentage of the population in 2004 (2003 for Japan) which had 

attained at least that level of education in the 13 countries 

examined:14

 Age group, years

 Country 25–34 35–44 45–54 55–64

United States............... 87 88 90 86

Canada ........................ 91 88 83 73

Australia ...................... 77 65 62 49

Japan............................ 94 94 82 65

Korea, Republic of....... 97 86 57 34

France.......................... 80 70 59 49

Germany...................... 85 86 84 79

Ireland ......................... 79 68 54 39

Italy ............................. 64 52 44 28

Netherlands................. 80 74 68 59

Spain ........................... 61 50 36 21

Sweden. ....................... 91 89 81 71

United Kingdom.......... 70 65 64 59

Little difference in attainment by age group is observed if the 

level is tertiary, as opposed to upper secondary, education.15

(For any given country, tertiary education is the equivalent 

of a college degree or higher in the United States; upper secondary is equivalent to a U.S. high school degree.)

The falling proportion of youths

Although the record of youth unemployment rates over 

recent decades is mixed, the trends of the youth proportion of the population, labor force, and unemployment 

have been almost uniformly downward. (See table 5.) 

Generally, in countries where the youth proportion of the 

population was highest at the beginning of the period, the 

fall has been the greatest. In Korea, for example, the youth 

proportion of the population fell from 29 percent in 1980 

to 15 percent in 2007; in Canada, the fall was from 24 percent to 15 percent. In Sweden, by contrast, where the youth 

proportion of the population was already the lowest, the 

decline in the proportion was very small. In every country 

except Japan and, to a somewhat lesser extent, Sweden, 

the combination of a falling youth population relative to 

the adult population and increasing proportions of young 

people in formal education resulted in notable declines 

in the proportion of young people in the labor force. In 

Korea, the youth proportion of the labor force fell by 15 

Percent

 Chart 1. Employed students as a percent of the student population, 10 countries, 2006

Italy

Spain

France

Sweden

Ireland

Germany

United States

United Kingdom

Canada

Netherlands

NOTE: Data for students who are employed part time are not available for Ireland. Students are defined as persons aged 15 to 24 years who ar

enrolled in education.

SOURCE: Employment Outlook (Paris, OECD, 2008), p. 3

0 10 20  30  40

Employed part time All employed

Country
Youth Labor Market

12 Monthly Labor Review • July 2009

 United States Ireland 

1980................................................. 22.2 23.7 45.9 1981 ............................................. 25.1 2

1985................................................. 19.4 20.5 38.6 1985 .............................................

1990................................................. 17.7 17.9 35.6 1990 ............................................. 23

1995................................................. 16.3 16.2 35.0 1995 ............................................. 2

2000................................................. 16.1 15.8 37.0 2000 ............................................. 22.3 1

2007................................................. 16.1 14.5 33.1 2007 ............................................. 18.

 Canada Italy 

1980................................................. 23.8 27.4 46.6 1980 ............................................. 20.7

1985................................................. 20.8 23.3 35.1 1985 ............................................. 20

1990................................................. 17.1 19.3 29.3 1990 ............................................. 20.5 1

1995................................................. 15.8 16.8 26.2 1995 ............................................. 16.7

2000................................................. 15.5 16.5 30.7 2000 ............................................. 13.

2007................................................. 15.1 16.2 30.2 2007 ............................................. 12.0 7

 Australia Netherlands 

1980................................................. 23.3 27.4 56.3 1980 ............................................. 

1985................................................. 21.9 25.6 47.0 1985 ............................................. 2

1990................................................. 20.6 23.3 43.9 1990 ............................................. 22.7

1995................................................. 18.9 21.4 38.7 1995 ............................................. 16

2000................................................. 17.2 19.2 37.0 2000 ............................................. 14.7 1

2007................................................. 17.2 18.7 40.1 2007 ............................................. 14.9 16.

 Japan Spain 

1980................................................. 18.0 12.4 21.9 1980 ............................................. 20.1 23.

1985................................................. 18.1 12.3 22.3 1985 ............................................. 20.1

1990................................................. 18.8 13.0 26.9 1990 ............................................. 19.4 20

1995................................................. 17.7 13.3 25.7 1995 ............................................. 18

2000................................................. 14.9 11.2 21.7 2000 ............................................. 15.8 14.

2007................................................. 12.3 9.1 18.1 2007 ............................................. 12.3 11.0

 Korea, Republic of Sweden 

1980................................................. 28.7 21.9 48.4 1980 ............................................. 16

1985................................................. 26.3 16.6 41.7 1985 ............................................. 1

1990................................................. 24.5 14.3 40.7 1990 ............................................. 17.0

1995................................................. 22.2 13.2 40.2 1995 ............................................. 15.6

2000................................................. 19.2 10.4 25.4 2000 ............................................. 14.5 1

2007................................................. 15.2 6.9 18.8 2007 ............................................. 15.7 1

 France United Kingdom 

1980................................................. 20.3 16.9 41.7 1984 ............................................. 18.7 

1985................................................. 19.6 15.4 38.7 1985 ............................................. 1

1990................................................. 18.6 12.4 25.8 1990 ............................................. 16.8

1995................................................. 16.7 9.1 20.3 1995 ............................................. 14.

2000................................................. 15.7 8.4 17.4 2000 ............................................. 13.

2007................................................. 15.9 10.4 24.6 2007 ............................................. 14

 Germany 

1980................................................. 19.6 20.9 2

1985................................................. 19.7 21.2 29

1990................................................. 16.4 17.3

1995................................................. 13.2 12.3

2000................................................. 12.9 11.5 1

2007................................................. 13.7 12.0 1

 

Table 5.

Country and year

Percentages of working-age population, labor force, and unemployment of youths under 25 years, 13 countries, 

selected years, 1980–2007

Population Labor Unemployment force Country and year

“Labor Force Statistics MEI: Harmonized Unemployment Rates and Levels

(HURs),” stats.oecd.org/WBOS/Index.aspx?QueryName=251&QueryType=

View; Statistics Canada (unpublished).

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 

Population Labor

force Unemployment
Monthly Labor Review • July 2009 1

percentage points; in Ireland (since 1981), by 13 percentage points; in Spain, by 12 percentage points; in Italy and 

Canada, by 11 percentage points; and in Germany and the 

United States, by 9 percentage points.

Largely as a consequence of falling youth labor force 

participation, the proportion of the unemployed who are 

under 25 years fell in every country but the United Kingdom. In some cases, the drop was considerable. In Italy, 

for instance, 62 percent of the unemployed were under 

25 years in 1980, whereas 25 percent were in 2007. Similarly, the proportion of the unemployed in Spain who 

were young people fell from 53 percent to 24 percent 

over the period, and large declines also occurred in Korea 

and France.

An examination of the anomalous case of the United 

Kingdom is revealing, particularly when contrasted with 

France. A consideration of just the youth unemployment 

rate would appear to indicate that the United Kingdom 

is substantially better off economically than France: 

in 2007, the U.K. youth unemployment rate was approximately 14 percent, down from 18 percent in 1985, 

whereas in France the youth unemployment rate was 19 

percent in 2007—down from 26 percent in 1985, but 

still above that of the United Kingdom. (See table 1.) As 

a relative social problem, however, the youth unemployment situation might be said to be worse in the United 

Kingdom than in France: not only did young people 

make up a far higher percentage, 41 percent (the highest of the 13 countries), of the total unemployed in the 

United Kingdom in 2007, compared with 25 percent in 

France, but the trends in the two countries were in opposite directions. (See table 5.)

Two factors loom large in the United Kingdom. First, 

by 2007 the unemployment rate for adults 25 years and 

older had fallen to less than 4 percent, among the lowest of the countries covered. (See table 1.) Second, at 

the same time, the participation rate of young people in 

the United Kingdom in 2007 was a relatively high 65 

percent. (See table 4.) The country’s unemployed youths 

came from a comparatively larger pool of young wouldbe workers.

The importance of participation rates is seen by noting 

that, in 2000, the youth unemployment rate in the United 

Kingdom was 12 percent, while it was 21 percent in France. 

(See table 1.) Even though France had more young people 

in the age group comprising 15- to 24-year-olds—7.4 million, compared with 6.2 million in the United Kingdom—the 

total number of unemployed youths in the United Kingdom 

was 505,000, as opposed to 452,000 in France.16

The “idleness” rate

The fact that youths between the ages of 15 and 24 are 

much more likely to be in school than are older groups, 

together with the further fact that the percentage of such 

young people has varied to a considerable degree by time 

and place, clearly clouds the relative labor market picture for this younger age category. Another perspective 

is gained by looking at the proportion of young people 

who are neither in school nor employed—that is to say, 

the rate of “idleness.” (See table 6; the term “idleness” is 

not intended to imply anything about the character of 

the person—that he or she is lazy, unambitious, shiftless, 

or anything else of the sort; it simply means that the individual is neither in school nor employed, for whatever 

reason—caring for a family member, being ill, or any 

number of reasons.) 

In contrast to unemployment rates, idleness rates are 

consistently greater for persons aged 20 to 24 years than 

for teenagers, suggesting that the rate of unemployment 

might be misleading as a measure of societal distress. 

Members of the younger group are far more likely to be in 

school, and whether or not they have gainful employment 

at that stage of their lives is generally less important than 

when they are in their early twenties.

Among the 11 countries listed in table 6, unemployment 

rates for the under-25 youth category track that group’s 

idleness fairly closely. The countries with the highest youth 

unemployment rates, Italy and Spain, are also the ones 

with the highest idleness rates, and the countries that have 

the lowest youth unemployment rates, the Netherlands 

and Ireland, also have the lowest youth idleness rates.

The period covered begins with 1995, and the idleness 

trend from then until 2004 is a decidedly mixed record. 

For the most part, reductions in idleness have occurred 

in those countries where rates were the highest, and increases have taken place where rates were the lowest. The 

result has been a youth idleness rate that varies a good 

deal less among countries than does the youth unemployment rate.

Youths living with parents

Besides participation in education, another factor making 

the youth labor market different from the general labor 

market is the usually large degree of financial support by 

parents that young people experience. A good proxy for 

the degree of financial support received by young people is 

whether or not they live with their parents. (See table 7.)
Youth Labor Market

14 Monthly Labor Review • Jul  20

By this measure, there is a good deal less uniformity 

among the countries, and less of a trend toward greater 

uniformity, than in the idleness rate or even in the unemployment rate, particularly with respect to young adults 

(20- to 24-year-olds). Spain and Italy, which consistently 

exhibit the highest unemployment rates, also had the 

highest percentages, by far, of young adults living with 

their parents. Both countries had close to 9 of every 10 

young adult men living with their parents in the earlier 

year, while the next country in the group was Ireland, with 

7 of 10 young adult men living at home. By 1997, the 

gap had widened in Spain and Italy, while it had fallen 

somewhat in Ireland. The gap in Spain and Italy widened 

even more in the case of women. Noteworthy, as well, is 

the fact that France, Australia, Canada, Germany, and the 

United States also showed increases in the percentages of 

young adults of both sexes living with parents, and some 

of the increases were substantial, but the levels remained 

much lower than in the other nations.

It is clear from these data that there is a cultural difUnited States................................ 7.8 7.0  6.9 17.8 14.

Canada............................................ 7.6 7.2 7.5 17.4

Australia.......................................... 9.9  6.8 7.5 16.9 

France.............................................. 2.5 3.3 5.4 17

Germany......................................... 13.4 5.7  3.6 15.

Ireland............................................. 25.2  4.4 8.5 10.8 9

Italy ................................................. 115.2 13.1 9.7  30.1 27.

Netherlands.................................. 12.7  3.7  3.3 7.5

Spain................................................ 11.5 8.0 10.4 25.8 15

Sweden........................................... 5.6 3.6 5.9 17.

United Kingdom.......................... – 8.0 10.3  – 15.

Table 6. Percent of age group neither in education nor employed, 11 countries, 1995, 2000, and 2004

1995 2000 2004 1995

15–19 years

1 1998.

2 1999.

Country

20–24 years

2000 2004

NOTE: Dash indicates data not available.

SOURCE: Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators, 2006 (Paris, OECD, Sept. 12, 

2006), pp. 329–

United States................................ 189.9 87.9 185.4 8349.50.0 3638.

Canada............................................ 88.9 90.8 82.2 84.7 49.53.439.

Australia.......................................... 187.4 8783.1 81.9 49.50.2 30.3

France.............................................. 94.9 94.1 88.8 91.1 55.8 

Germany......................................... 95.1 95.5 91.8 92.1 64.

Ireland............................................. 95.3 91.1 93.4 88.0 73

Italy ................................................. 97.2 96.6 95.9 95.8 87.4 92.7

Netherlands.................................. 95.6 992.4 64.039.6 

Spain................................................ 95.4 994.1 94.89.0 92.77.8 88.2

United Kingdom.......................... 94.4 92.9 87.2 87.3 56.

1 1986

2 1996

3 1988

Table 7. Percent of young people living with their parents, by age and sex, 10 countries, 1985 and 1996 (15- 19-year-olds) 

and 1985 and 1997 (20- 24-year olds)

1985 1996 1996 1985

15–19 years

SOURCE: Norman Bowers, Anne Sonnet, and Laura Bardone, “Background Report, Giving Young People a Good Start: the Experience of OECD

Countries,” in Preparing Youth for the 21st Century: The Transition from Education to the Labour Market (Paris, OECD, 1999), p. 62

Country

20–24 years

1985 1997 1985 1997

Men Women Men Women
Monthly Labor Review • July 2009 1

ference between Spain and Italy, on the one hand, and all 

the other countries studied, on the other, when it comes 

to the tendency of young people to continue to live with 

their parents well into their twenties. This tendency can 

be seen as both an effect and a cause of the higher youth 

unemployment rates in those countries. If they are unemployed, youths are more likely to be dependent upon their 

parents for housing. If they and their parents simply have 

a higher preference for them to live at home, then a couple 

of reasons previously mentioned for youth unemployment 

to exceed the unemployment of adults come into play: (1) 

youths become less mobile in their availability for employment, and (2) with parental financial support, they 

can afford to wait longer and pass up job opportunities 

that are not to their liking.

In Korea and Japan, the role of family support also appears quite strong in delaying employment until just the 

right job can be found. The term NEET, an acronym for 

what is called “idleness” in this article, first coined in Britain and standing for “not in education, employment, or 

training,” has come into common usage in both countries. 

Protective parents of ever fewer children per family are 

seen as partial enablers of the phenomenon. As one commentator says, 

NEET’s parents have worked tirelessly to give opportunities to their children, as family bonds in East 

Asian societies are very strong. They invest their 

earnings in their children’s success and take care of 

them until marriage. Children’s long-term dependency on their parents is accepted, and is expected to 

help them in the future.17

Educational attainment and transition to work

Table 8 shows data on unemployment by educational attainment for 12 countries. In the United States in 1996, 

the average unemployment rate for young men who likely 

had completed formal education—those aged 25 to 29 

years—fell rapidly as education rose. For U.S. women, the 

difference in unemployment rates for the least formally 

educated and the most educated was even greater. In other 

countries, the employment payoff to education is clearly 

not so apparent as it is in the United States and most of 

the remaining countries. In countries such as Italy and 

Spain, this phenomenon has been attributed to “credential 

inflation,” or so-called overeducation owing to formal labor markets that are difficult to enter and a weak tradition 

of vocational education within the secondary education 

system.18 Also, the stronger role played by parents in these 

countries permits college graduates to take more time in 

finding an ideal initial job. The higher unemployment rates 

for the educated do not continue past the late twenties in 

either Italy or Spain: from 1991 to 2004, unemployment 

rates among 25- to 64-year-olds were consistently lower 

for each level of education attained, although they did not 

fall as much as in the other countries, with the exception 

of Korea.19 In Korea, another country with strong parental 

support and a shrinking family size, the low level of unemployment for that age group is hardly affected by the 

degree of formal education.

In contrast to the United States, where most technical 

and vocational training comes after high school, Germany has a dual system of education in which a substantial 

percentage of students are identified as they approach 

their teen years as better suited for training for a specific 

vocation. While still engaged in formal education at the 

secondary level, they become apprentices on 3- or 4-year 

contracts with employers. Each year, they also spend several weeks in training at a vocational school. The cost is 

borne by both employers and the government, and the 

nation’s labor unions are parties to the arrangement. The 

cost also is borne, to a degree, by the apprentices themselves, because they are paid wages that are well below the 

wages of regular employees doing similar work.20

The fruits of this arrangement readily exhibit themselves statistically. According to an OECD survey, the 

level of employed youths with no more than a minimal 

command of basic mathematics in Germany is very low 

compared with the U.S. level.21 German youths who are 

most likely to have shortcomings in mathematics also are 

most likely to be in an apprenticeship, and their handicap 

in the subject is thus an early concern. Clearly, both external and internal pressure is brought to bear upon the 

young person to learn the basic skills necessary for fruitful employment before he or she completely leaves formal 

education behind.

Germany also stands out throughout the period as the 

one country among those studied whose youth unemployment rate is little or no higher than its overall unemployment rate. At the same time, along with France, 

Germany is the only other country in the group to have 

higher unemployment rates for 20- to 24-year-olds than 

for 15- to 19-year-olds in some years. This fact suggests 

that some of those teenagers who easily find jobs in the 

form of apprenticeships or through continuing briefly to 

work in the companies with which they apprenticed go 

on to lose them in the years ahead. In effect, their years of 

greatest vulnerability are being postponed.

The German apprenticeship system also has been criti-
Youth Labor Market

16 Monthly Labor Review • Jul  20

cized for its rigidity, requiring important career decisions 

to be made too early in life and tying young people to 

particular employers for long periods at the expense of 

a more careful consideration of job searches and career 

matching.22

Studies tracking work experience between the ages of 

16 and 24 years and covering the 1979–88 period for the 

United States and the 1974–84 period for West Germany 

found that U.S. men held an average of 8.6 jobs while 

West German men held 2.9 jobs, on average. For women, 

the figures were 7.6 jobs in the United States and 2.2 jobs 

in Germany.23 No doubt, some of those U.S. jobs had little 

to do with career matching; rather, they were low-paying, 

short-term jobs that young persons engaged in when they 

were mainly students. Similarly, some of the U.S. youths’ 

German counterparts took such jobs when they were tied 

to apprenticeships. In both countries, however, other jobs 

that youths took were more likely to have been related to 

career advancement.

Now that German youth unemployment rates equal 

or exceed those of many other countries, especially in the 

more crucial 20- to 24-year-old range, and with the inherent difficulties of adapting the system to other cultural 

settings, it would seem unlikely that the German apprenticeship system would be seen as much of a role model for 

other countries in the foreseeable future. Even so, several 

of the countries in the group have expanded their own 

apprenticeship programs in recent years. Among them are 

Australia, Ireland, the United Kingdom, and France.24

The country with the lowest youth unemployment 

rate at the beginning of the period was Japan, and as in 

Germany, the Japanese rate of youth unemployment had 

historically been very low. Also as in Germany, the low 

rate in Japan came about through a low overall unemployment rate produced by vigorous economic growth and a 

relatively rigid early-employment system.

In Japan, there is a close working relationship between 

larger companies and secondary schools.25 With admission 

to schools based on competitive exams, companies vie for 

the graduates of the top schools. Academic performance 

is important in getting the best jobs, even for those in 

vocational high schools, who account for about a third of 

all students. Employers tend to recruit from specific high 

schools year after year, with some degree of trust established between companies and school officials.

Even at vocational high schools, some two-thirds of the 

courses are academic in nature. Young workers are hired 

more on the basis of their perceived “trainability” rather 

than because of any particular skills they might have. 

Workers are encouraged to develop a variety of skills, and 

changing of jobs and work assignments within companies 

is encouraged. By changing jobs for the same employer, 

the typical Japanese worker gets the variety of experience 

that the U.S. worker might get from changing employers. The tendency of young workers in Japan to leave one 

employer for another, either voluntarily or involuntarily, is 

even less than in Germany. In a retrospective survey ending in 1985, Japanese workers up to age 30 were found to 

United States................................ 15.7 7.6 4.1 17

Canada............................................ 20.2 12.5 7.8 23.6 10

Australia.......................................... 13.4 6.6 5.6 

Korea, Republic of....................... 3.5 3.6 5.2 1.7

France.............................................. 21.1 12.1 11.1  32.4 18.

Germany......................................... 18.6 7.4 6.2 15.8

Ireland............................................. 24.7 8.5 5.6

Italy ................................................. 14.1 15.4 27.3 22.0 2

Netherlands.................................. 9.0  4.0  6.9 8.0 

Spain................................................ 26.3 19.9 24.7  41.3 

Sweden........................................... 20.0 13.9 7.1 26.4 1

United Kingdom.......................... 23.6 10.5 5.0 17

Table 8. Unemployment rate for young adults (25–29 years), by educational attainment and sex, 12 countries, 1996

Upper

secondary

Less than upper

secondary University

or tertiary

SOURCE: Norman Bowers, Anne Sonnett, and Laura Bardone, “Background Report, Giving Young People a Good Start: the Experience of OECD 

Country

Men Women

Less than upper

secondary

Upper

secondary

University

or tertiary

Countries,” in Preparing Youth for the 21st Century: The Transition from Education to the Labour Market (Paris, OECD, 1999), p. 67

[In percent]
Monthly Labor Review • July 2009 17

have had an average of 1.7 employers per decade.26

In addition to Japan’s relatively smooth and structured 

transition from school to work, comparatively low and 

flexible wages for young people and a lesser tendency to 

lay off recently hired workers during economic hardship 

than in most other countries tend to keep youth unemployment down. Still, in spite of these factors, the long 

Japanese recession of the 1990s caused the youth unemployment rate to rise almost to the same level as that of 

the United States by the end of the decade. As an indicator of the strain on the system, the average number of 

jobs offered to the typical job applicant newly graduating 

from senior high school fell from a peak of 3.3 in 1992 

to 1.8 in 1997.27 The recruitment of new graduates from 

high school declined from a high of 1.67 million in 1992 

to 220,000 in 2003.28

Like Germany, Japan has a relatively large share of 

youths who are among the long-term unemployed, as detailed in the next section. Young people who find themselves derailed in the structured systems of Japan and 

Germany apparently have a considerable amount of difficulty getting back on track.

In between those recruited for regular jobs and the unemployed among the young, there has arisen a category for 

which the Japanese have coined a new term: freeters. Although the term has a variety of definitions, encompassing 

a lifestyle different from the traditional Japanese lockstep 

from school, to one large company, and on to retirement, a 

common feature among the definitions is engagement in 

casual or part-time work. By one definition, the number 

of such freeters approximately doubled, to 2.09 million, in 

the decade ending in the early 2000s.29

In spite of the worsening youth employment situation in Japan, the Government spends virtually nothing 

on special programs for young people.30 A likely reason 

is that the youth unemployed make up a relatively low 

percentage of the total unemployed and, with birthrates 

low and declining while life expectancy continues to rise, 

the percentage of the population that is 15 to 24 years 

old is not expected to rise in the future. The decreasing 

supply of young people should increase their employment chances, unless there is a dramatic worsening of 

the economy.

Long-term unemployment for youths

Wide variation among the countries also can be found in 

the duration of unemployment for young persons. (See 

table 9.) The expression “long-term unemployed” commonly refers to persons who have been unemployed for 

a year or longer. A given level of unemployment might 

be deemed more acceptable, particularly among young 

people, to the extent that the unemployment of the individuals involved is brief. Those not sure of what livelihoods they want to pursue and those without a lot of 

time invested in training and experience in a particular 

vocation can be expected to try out several different jobs 

early in their careers, and these tryouts might well involve 

periods of unemployment. Such unemployment can be 

regarded as frictional, the cost of having a dynamic, flexible economy.

Not surprisingly, in every one of the countries and in 

every year examined, except for Italy in 1985 and Sweden in 1990, the percentage of the unemployed in the 

long-term category is lower for young people than for all 

working ages—in most cases, considerably so. The trend 

of the proportion of long-term youth unemployment to 

all youth unemployment is clearly downward in five of 

the countries—Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and 

the United Kingdom—and moving upward in only one of 

the countries: Japan. From a proportion of long-duration 

youth unemployment that was among the lowest early in 

the period, Japan has moved into the middle ranks.

The high proportion of unemployment that is long-term 

unemployment, both for young people and for the general 

population, is striking in many European countries. Italy 

is the extreme case, with proportions that are hardly lower 

for the young than for everyone else and with only a small 

trend downward. Germany and France have persistently 

high rates as well, although they are much lower for young 

people than for their elders. The United Kingdom, by contrast, had a higher proportion of long-term unemployed 

young people than either Germany or France had in 1985, 

but by 2007 the proportion had become much lower than 

in those countries.

At the other end of the spectrum are Korea and Canada, along with the United States and, most recently, Sweden. Because Korea only began a modest unemployment 

insurance program in 1995, and because the United States 

provides a good deal less financial support for the unemployed than the average for the 13 countries combined, 

the relative generosity of a country’s unemployment compensation is suggested as one factor in the prevalence of 

long-term unemployment.31 The following unpublished 

estimates from Wayne Vroman of The Urban Institute 

show the types of unemployment systems (unemployment insurance, unemployment assistance, or both) and 

the generosities of unemployment compensation (the 

product of the average percentage of the unemployed receiving benefits and the percentage of the wage replaced) 
Youth Labor Market

18 Monthly Labor Review • July 2009

 United States Ireland 

1980............................................................... 2.6 4.3 1980 .......................................................

1985............................................................... 5.1 9.5 1985 .....................................................

1990............................................................... 2.3 5.5 1990 ........................................................

1995............................................................... 5.2 9.7 1995 ........................................................ 

2000............................................................... 3.8  6.0 1999 ........................................................ 29

2007............................................................... 6.5 9.9 2007 ........................................................ 21.

 Canada Italy 

1980............................................................... 3.3 5.1 1980 .......................................................

1985............................................................... 6.4 12.0 1985 .......................................................

1990............................................................... 3.0 7.1 1990 ........................................................ 58.

1995............................................................... 7.1 16.3 1995 ......................................................

2000............................................................... 3.8 10.7 2000 ........................................................ 58.0

2007............................................................... 2.1 7.1 2007 ........................................................ 40

 Australia Netherlands 

1980............................................................... 15.9 19.2 1980 ........................................................ – 

1985............................................................... 22.8  30.8 1985 ......................................................

1990............................................................... 13.7 21.1 1990 ........................................................ 26.8  

1995............................................................... 20.6 32.0 1995 ........................................................ 

2000............................................................... 14.7 25.5 1999 ........................................................ 13.

2007............................................................... 10.0 15.5 2007 ........................................................ 11.9

 Japan Spain 

1980............................................................... 8.0 16.7 1980 ........................................................ 3

1985............................................................... 2.9 13.4 1985 .....................................................

1990............................................................... 11.1 20.1 1990 ........................................................ 49.

1995............................................................... 11.1 17.1 1995 ........................................................

2000............................................................... 20.0 25.4 2000 ........................................................

2007............................................................... 19.1  30.5 2007 ........................................................ 13.

 Korea, Republic of Sweden

1980............................................................... – – 1980 ........................................................ 1.1  4

1985............................................................... – – 1985 ........................................................ 1.0 

1990............................................................... 1.1 2.5 1990 ........................................................ 11.8 11

1995............................................................... 3.3 4.4 1995 .......................................................

2000............................................................... 1.0 2.3 2000 ........................................................ 8.9 

2007............................................................... .4 .6 2007 ........................................................

 France United Kingdom 

1980............................................................... 23.2  34.6 1980 ......................................................

1985............................................................... 30.7  39.7 1985 ......................................................

1990............................................................... 17.8  35.2 1990 ........................................................ 21.1

1995............................................................... 21.3 39.6 1995 .......................................................

2000............................................................... 19.3 40.1 2000 ........................................................ 15.0 

2007............................................................... 23.2  39.0 2007 ........................................................ 1

 Germany 

1980. ............................................................. – – 

1985............................................................... 30.

1990............................................................... 29.0  48.

1995............................................................... 25.6 

2000............................................................... 21.4 

2007............................................................... 32

1 Long-term unemployment is unemployment for 1 year or longer.

NOTE: Dash indicates data not available.

Table 9.

Country and year

Share of unemployment that is long-term unemployment,1 13 countries, selected years, 1980–2007

Under 25 

years

All ages Country and year

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 

Under 25 

years All ages

[In percent]

“Labor Force Statistics MEI: Harmonized Unemployment Rates and Levels 

(HURs),” stats.oecd.org/WBOS/Index.aspx?QueryName=251&QueryType=

View; Statistics Canada (unpublished).
Monthly Labor Review • July 2009 19

in the 13 countries studied in this article:

 Unemployment Unemployment 

Country compensation compensation

 system generosity

United States........ Unemployment

 insurance 0.11

Canada .................. Unemployment

 insurance .27

Australia ............... Unemployment 

 assistance .27

Japan..................... Unemployment

 insurance .15

Korea, Republic of. Unemployment

 insurance, 1998–2003 .04

France................... Unemployment

 insurance and

 unemployment

 assistance .40

Germany............... Unemployment

 insurance and

 unemployment 

 assistance .36

Ireland .................. Unemployment 

 insurance and

 unemployment

 assistance .38

Italy ...................... Unemployment

 insurance .09

Netherlands.......... Unemployment

 insurance and

 unemployment

 asssistance .84

Spain .................... Unemployment 

 insurance and

 unemployment

 assistance .22

Sweden ................. Unemployment

 insurance and

 unemployment

 assistance .68

United Kingdom .. Unemployment

 insurance and

 unemployment

 assistance .13

However, correlating unemployment compensation with 

the proportion of long-term unemployment for 1995 produces coefficients close to zero for young people and a coefficient of only 0.22 for all working ages. Countries such as 

Italy, with the highest long-term unemployment and low 

unemployment generosity, and Sweden, with lower longterm unemployment and the greatest unemployment generosity, undermine the relative-generosity hypothesis.

Clearly, other factors are at work to influence the prevalence of long-term unemployment. For Italy and Spain, more 

closely knit families that provide support to unemployed family members, as well as the existence of large “underground” 

or “informal” economies, have been offered as an explanation 

of higher unemployment of all durations, particularly for 

young people.32 A large informal economy, however, should 

hardly be a sufficient reason all by itself for labor force surveys 

to overreport the percentage of the unemployed—that is to 

say, to report as unemployed people who actually are working in the underground economy. Interestingly, in Mexico 

the presence of a large informal sector is given as a primary 

reason for that country’s unusually low reported unemployment rates.33 The difference, perhaps, is that Mexico has no 

unemployment compensation program, so a person working 

in the informal sector has no incentive to tell employment 

enumerators that he or she is unemployed. Italy and Spain, 

by contrast, have unemployment compensation programs, 

although Italy’s is next lowest to Korea’s in generosity among 

the countries covered in this article.

Spain and Italy also have active labor market programs, 

some of which are aimed specifically at young people. (See 

table 10.) Public expenditures on active labor market programs correlate much better with the prevalence of longterm unemployment than does unemployment compensation generosity. The coefficient for expenditures for all 

working ages in 2002, measured against the prevalence of 

long-term unemployment in 2000, was 0.54. It was 0.45 

for the percentage of GDP spent on youth measures, compared with the share of youth unemployment that was 

long-term unemployment.

Table 10 also shows a very wide range, among the 

countries listed, in the relative national resources devoted to active labor market measures, whether for the general public or for young people in particular. France was 

by far the leader in the latter, with twice the percentage 

of its gross domestic product devoted to such programs 

for young people as the next-nearest country. Following France were Italy, Ireland, and the United Kingdom. 

The United States ranked last in the percentage of GDP

spent on active labor market measures generally. Japan 

was lowest in its relative expenditure on youth measures, 

at only 0.01 percent of GDP, although Canada, Korea, 

and Sweden spent little more, at 0.02 percent of GDP, 

and the U.S. figure was just a bit higher, 0.03 percent of 

GDP.

THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE AMONG YOUNG PEOPLE

in most advanced industrial countries has been generally 
Youth Labor Market

20 Monthly Labor Review • July 2009

higher in recent decades than it was in the 1960s and 

1970s. This development owes mainly to the fact that in 

Western Europe and Japan overall unemployment has 

been higher than it was in the earlier period. The increase 

in unemployment occurred mainly in the early 1980s, and 

the trend, with some few exceptions, has been essentially 

level since that time.

A number of factors virtually ensure that, in the absence 

of extraordinary programs such as Germany’s apprenticeships, the level of unemployment among the young will 

remain higher than among the general labor force. Almost 

all of the countries have exhibited youth unemployment 

problems of one sort or another. Spain and Italy consistently have had the highest overall unemployment rates, 

but youth unemployment rates have declined in both 

countries in recent years. France has shown similar levels 

of youth unemployment, but with no downward trend; its 

youth unemployment rate was among the highest of the 

13 countries in 2007.

In the Netherlands, Sweden, and the English-speaking 

countries, young people make up a relatively high percentage of the unemployed. In Sweden, the high percentage 

is related to recent high youth unemployment rates and 

somewhat high youth participation rates. In the Englishspeaking countries and the Netherlands, high youth participation rates are the main factor.

The low and declining proportions of youth unemployment in most of the countries are a result of both a falling 

proportion of the youth population and declining participation of young people in the labor force.

Most of the European countries have relatively high 

proportions of youths who are among the long-term 

unemployed, but the proportions are lower than for the 

general population, and they have been on the decline. 

However, the proportions of unemployment that are longterm unemployment have been on the rise in Japan and, 

to a lesser degree, the United States; still, the proportions 

remains relatively low in those countries.

Notes

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: Thanks go to Judy Yang and Jennifer Raynor of the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics for assistance in collecting and organizing the data 

presented in this article, as well as in editing the article. Giorgio DiPietro of 

the University of Westminster was helpful in interpreting the education and 

unemployment data from Italy. Wayne Vroman was generous in sharing his estimates of international unemployment compensation. Finally, special gratitude 

is due Connie Sorrentino and Susan Fleck of BLS for their general assistance 

with the article.

1 Constance Sorrentino, “Youth unemployment: an international perspective,” Monthly Labor Review, July 1981, pp. 3–15; on the Internet at www.bls.

gov/opub/mlr/1981/07/art1full.pdf (visited July 9, 2009). The countries in 

that study were the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan, France, Italy, Sweden, West Germany, and the United Kingdom excluding Northern Ireland.

2 For other adjustments to the Canadian labor force statistics, see “International Comparisons of Annual Labor Force Statistics, 10 Countries, 

United States3 ................ .15 .03

Canada4 ............................ .42 .02

Australia.......................... .45 .08 1

Japan6 ............................... .28 .01

Korea, Republic of........ .27 .02 7.

France ............................... 1.25 .40

Germany.......................... 1.18 .10 8.

Ireland6 ............................. 1.14 .18 

Italy7................................... .57 .20 

Netherlands.................... 1.85 .04

Spain ................................. .87 .06 

Sweden ............................ 1.40 .02 1

United Kingdom8.......... .36 .

Table 10. Active labor market programs and public expenditures on youths, 13 countries, 2002

Youth 

 measures2

Total active

measures1

Youth 

measures ÷ 

total active 

measures, 

percent

Country

1 Consists of public employment services and administration, labor 

market training, youth measures, subsidized employment, and measures for the disabled. 2 Consists of measures for unemployed and disadvantaged youths 

and support of apprenticeship and related forms of general youth 

training. Fiscal year beginning October 1, 2001. 4 Fiscal year beginning April 1, 2001. 5 Fiscal year beginning July 1, 201. 6 2001. 7 Public employment services and administration not includ

active measures. 8 Fiscal year beginning April 12, 2001; excludes Northern Ireland.

SOURCE: Employment Outlook (Paris, OECD, 2004, 2004), Anne

Table H.

[In percent of GDP]

1960–2007” (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Oct. 21, 2008), on the Internet at 

www.bls.gov/fls/flscomparelf.htm (visited July 9, 2009); click on “Technical 

Notes.”

3 On declining birthrates, see Gary Martin and Vladimir Kats, “Families 

and work in transition in 12 countries, 1980–2001, Monthly Labor Review, 

September 2003, pp. 3–31, table 1, p. 4; on the Internet at www.bls.gov/opub/

mlr/2003/09/art1full.pdf (visited July 9, 2009).

4 Table 2, “Civilian labor force, employment, and unemployment approximating U.S. concepts, 1960–2007” (Bureau of Labor Statistics, no date), on the 

Internet at ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/ForeignLabor/lfcompendiumt02.

txt (visited July 9, 2009). Overall unemployment data from OECD and from BLS

are generally comparable.

5 As an example of the routine use of the ratio of youth to adult unemployment, see “Youth unemployment,” in Key Indicators of the Labor Market, 4th ed. 

(International Labor Office, 2006), table 9, pp. 431–42.
Monthly Labor Review • July 2009 21

6 Perhaps the point may be more easily understood by looking at the change 

in one measure of unemployment, as opposed to comparing two unemployment 

rates. A rise in the national unemployment rate from, say, 10 percent to 20 

percent is clearly a much more serious matter than a rise from 1 percent to 2 

percent, because a much greater percentage of the population has become unemployed in the former instance than in the latter, although in each case there 

was the same 100-percent increase in the unemployment rate. Finally, the point 

may be driven home with the following ditty of mine, titled “Welfare Theory in 

Verse” (assuming a labor force of 100):

Rita, the second to lose her job,

Claimed a greater importance than Floyd.

For he was only number ten

In the line of the unemployed.

She doubled the unemployment rate,

Though that was not her intent,

While Floyd only managed to raise the rate

By eleven point one percent.

“But wait,” said the seriously slighted Floyd,

“Her importance is not so great.

Please notice how my being laid off

Changed the employment rate.”

7 Global Employment Trends for Youth, 2006 (International Labor Office, 

2006), p. 19.

8 Olivier Marchand, “Youth Unemployment in OECD Countries: How 

Can the Disparities Be Explained?” in Preparing Youth for the 21st Century: The 

Transition from Education to the Labour Market (Paris, OECD, 1999), pp. 336–44. 

According to Marchand, 23 percent of employed young people in the European 

Union in 1995 worked on fixed-term contracts, as opposed to 7 percent of employed persons over the age of 30. The practice, says Marchand, is much more 

prevalent in Sweden, France, and Spain than in the United Kingdom or Italy.

9 Employment Outlook (Paris, OECD, 2008), p. 33.

10 The apparent greater natural facility of young people to adapt to new 

computer-related work should have worked as a counterbalance to these labor 

market disadvantages to a degree, as information and communication technologies changed rapidly in recent years. (See Peter Morris, “A Survey of the Implications of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) on Youth 

Employment,” issues paper prepared for the International Labor Organization, 

November 2000, on the Internet at www.telesis.com.au/docs/ICTs_&_Youth_

Employment.doc (visited, July 9, 2009).)

11 Norman Bowers, Anne Sonnet, and Laura Bardone, “Giving Young 

People a Good Start: The Experience of OECD Countries,” in Preparing Youth 

for the 21st Century: The Transition from Education to the Labour Market (Paris, 

OECD, 1999), pp. 7–86. (See especially p. 71.)

12 Richard B. Freeman, “The Youth Job Market Problem at Y2K,” Preparing 

Youth for the 21st Century, pp. 89–100. Some economists argue that the United 

States should be included among those countries in which increased schooling 

and lower labor participation rates by young people are caused, at least partially, 

by a softening job market. (See Sudeep Reddy, “Teen Behavior Offers Clue to 

Why Jobless Rate Stays Low Despite Slowing Growth,” The Wall Street Journal, 

June 18, 2007, p. A2.)

13 Peter van der Meer and Rudi Wielers, “The Increased Labour Market Participation of Dutch Students,” Work, Employment & Society, vol. 15, no. 1, 2001, 

pp. 55–71; on the Internet at wes.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/15/1/55 

(visited July 9, 2009). The Netherlands has by far the highest percentage of parttime employment among the 30 countries of the OECD, 35.7 percent of total 

employment in 2005. (See “Part-Time Employment,” in OECD Factbook 2007 

(Paris, OECD, 2007), pp. 128–29; on the Internet at fiordiliji.sourceoecd.org/

pdf//fact2007pdf//06-01-03.pdf (visited July 9, 2009).)

14 Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators 2006 (Paris, OECD, Sept. 12, 2006), 

p. 38.

15 Ibid., p. 39.

16 OECD.StatExtracts, on the Internet at stats.oecd.org/wbos/Index.aspx 

(visited July 9, 2009).

17 Hyejin Kim, “A NEET Trick: Living on Familial Love,” Asia Times Online, 

Feb. 17, 2006, on the Internet at www.atimes.com/atimes/Asian_Economy/

HB17Dk01.html (visited July 9, 2009).

18 Employment Outlook (Paris, OECD, 2002). (See also Education at a Glance, 

pp. 118–19.)

19 Ibid. 

20 Niall O’Higgins, Youth Unemployment and Employment Policy: A Global 

Perspective (Geneva, International Labor Office, 2001), pp. 100–05. 

21 A 1995 OECD literacy survey found that 20.3 percent of employed 16- 

to 24-year-olds in the United States had only minimal mathematical skills, 

while the figure was 8.2 percent for Canada, 5.7 percent for the Netherlands, 

5.2 percent for Sweden, and 2.3 percent for Germany. (See Lisa M. Lynch, 

“The Transition from Initial Education to the Labour Market: Recent Experience in the United States,” in Preparing Youth for the 21st Century, pp. 

289–301.)

22 O’Higgins, Youth Unemployment and Employment Policy, p. 104.

23 Paul Ryan, “The School-to-Work Transition: A Cross-National Perspective,” Journal of Economic Literature, March 2001, p. 57.

24 Robert I. Lerman, “Improving Career Outcomes for Youth: Lessons from 

the U.S. and OECD Experience” (The Urban Institute and U.S. Department of 

Labor, 2000 and 2001), on the Internet at wdr.doleta.gov/opr/fulltext/01-oecd.

pdf (visited July 10, 2009).

25 Naoki Mitani, “The Japanese Employment System and Youth Labor 

Market,” in Preparing Youth for the 21st Century, pp. 305–28. 

26 Ryan, “The School-to-Work Transition,” p. 57.

27 Mitani, “The Japanese Employment System,” p. 306.

28 Reiko Kosugi, “The Transition from School to Work in Japan: Understanding the Increase in Freeter and Jobless Youth,” Japan Labor Review, winter 

2004, pp. 52–67—see especially p. 53; on the Internet at www.jil.go.jp/english/

JLR/2004bi.htm#no1.htm (visited July 10, 2009).

29 Ibid., p. 52.

30 Ryan, “The School-to-Work Transition,” p. 68.

31 Annette H. K. Son, “Social Insurance Programs in South Korea and Taiwan: A Historical Overview,” Uppsala Papers in Economic History, Research Report No. 50 (Uppsala, Sweden, Uppsala University, 2002), p. 15; on the Internet 

at 66.102.1.104/scholar?q=cache:pKpNvU-P35QJ:scholar.google.com/&hl=en

(visited July 10, 2009).

32 Marchand, “Youth Unemployment in OECD Countries,” p. 332; Torild 

Hammer, ed., “Introduction,” Youth Unemployment and Social Exclusion in Europe: A Comparative Study (Bristol, U.K., The Policy Press, 2003), pp. 10, 13.

33 Gary Martin, “Employment and Unemployment in Mexico in the 

1990s,” Monthly Labor Review, November 2000, pp. 3–18; see especially pp. 

8–11; on the Internet at www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2000/11/art1full.pdf (visited 

July 7, 2009)