NEET: the global youth education vs. unemployment paradox: causes, consequences and solutions | Experts’ Opinions

Do well in school, go to college, get a degree, and you will land a good job – this is what most parents tell their children. At first glance, there is nothing wrong with that advice. However, the traditional path of studying hard and automatically landing a good opportunity is no longer guaranteed in today’s competitive job market.

The landscape is evolving with such speed that the professions in demand a couple of years ago are either replaced or are no longer needed. The reality is hitting young people hard, with statistics showing that globally, one in five young people (20.4%) is not in employment, education or training (NEET), making the transition from education to decent work a persistent development challenge.
According to the International Labour Organization (ILO), young people who can’t find a job are at risk of skills deterioration, social pressure, and the lack of a stable future, with young women being particularly affected. We have asked several experts about the NEET rates, consequences and expectations. Read their insights below.

DevelopmentAid: Why do NEET rates remain so high despite decades of investment in youth employment, education and skills programs?

“The persistence of high NEET rates suggests that we have mistakenly treated a skills problem as a system issue. In 2023, 20.4% of young people in the world were not employed, educated, or trained, and two in three young NEETs were women (ILO, 2024). Over a decade working in Africa, MENA & humanitarian/development contexts, I’ve learned that completing a training programme does not guarantee entry to work. One can train technically and still return to an economy where jobs are scarce, businesses cannot get finance, infrastructure is poor, and employers cannot access training institutions. It is therefore not just that young people are not skilled. The problem is that too many economies are not providing decent opportunities to absorb those skills. More than half of all young workers worldwide are working in informal employment, and three out of four in low-income countries are working for themselves or doing temporary paid work (ILO, 2024). Instead of measuring success by how many young people finish training, we need to measure whether they move onto sustainable livelihoods, further education, or decent work. The real question is not whether we are training young people. It is whether the systems around them are creating somewhere meaningful for those skills to go.”

“NEET cannot be addressed as a single-issue problem. It should be considered within the context of access to education, labor-market structures, and social support. NEET statistics must be read against the broader socio-economic environment in each jurisdiction. In some settings, there simply aren’t enough decent jobs for the supply of educated youth. In others, low secondary qualifications and no prior work experience make it difficult for young, inexperienced people to enter the formal job market. In the UK, for example, NEET rates for those with GCSE-level qualifications or below run roughly three times higher than for graduates. Structural exclusion compounds this. NEET is consistently skewed toward women and minority populations. Globally, women account for roughly two-thirds of NEET youth, driven by a combination of unpaid care responsibilities, restricted labour-market access and cultural norms. In addition to structural exclusion, NEET youth directly report a lack of social connection and mental health support as barriers to re-engagement. A further constraint is evidence quality. Comprehensive, comparable data across societal settings is limited, and rigorous impact evaluations of funded programmes are rare, limiting how confidently causal claims can be made across jurisdictions. What evidence exists suggests NEET rate movements track macro-economic cycles, demographics, migration, and concurrent reforms, rather than any single programme.”

“This is because NEET is not a single problem but a set of interconnected issues, and most development programming treats it as a single skills-development gap. According to the ILO’s own framing, NEET includes unemployed youth and a large group outside the workforce, with approximately three inactive NEET youth for every one unemployed; most of that larger group are young women facing care responsibilities rather than a lack of training. Over the decades, investments have mostly addressed supply-side issues, focusing on skills and certificates, while demand-side constraints, weak entry-level hiring, informality and geographic mismatch are still unaddressed. Additionally, development programming has treated “youth” as homogeneous; meanwhile, an unemployed graduate, a recent school leaver, and women disengaged by care duties and limited market access are not skill-deficient but need customised, individualised employment pathways. Another constraint is that interventions are typically donor-cycle-driven, disconnected from employers, and short-term driven. This gives the impression that success should be measured at enrolment or first job placement rather than sustained employment over 12–24 months, which masks high rates of relapse into NEET status.”

“NEET persists because investment has flowed overwhelmingly into the supply of skills while the demand for labour, the transition itself, and structural exclusion are left largely untouched. Supply-side bias without addressing the demand for labour. Governments fund training because it is politically visible and measurable; employment is neither. Fragmented, short-cycle funding leads to a mismatch between trained youth and what employers actually need. No structured handover from school to work. Germany’s dual system keeps youth unemployment among the OECD’s lowest precisely because employers co-own the curriculum and the trainee; most systems have no equivalent handover point. The entry rung itself is disappearing. Weak economic growth, geopolitical instability and technological change have all affected the availability and nature of entry-level jobs. Informality caps the ceiling. Nearly nine in ten young workers in low- and lower-middle-income countries work informally, often without labour protection or social security. Leaving NEET status for insecure informal work is not a durable exit. Gender exclusion is structural, not skills-based. Young women’s NEET rate of 27.4% is more than double men’s 13.1% — driven by unpaid care, early marriage and mobility restrictions that no training curriculum addresses.”

“NEET rates remain high because many programs seek to improve young people’s employability without addressing the shortage of productive jobs. Training cannot lead to sustainable employment when firms recruit too few workers, economies create insufficient formal jobs, or available positions remain insecure. Interventions are also frequently fragmented, short-lived, and assessed by the number of participants trained rather than by the employment secured, its duration, and the income generated. Another problem is the mismatch between the skills taught and employers’ actual needs. Standardized programs cannot adequately address the different circumstances of unemployed graduates, school dropouts, rural youth, and young parents. Women face additional barriers, including unpaid care responsibilities, inadequate childcare services, unsafe transport, and social norms restricting their economic participation. Finally, economic crises, conflicts, technological change, and weak public employment services make school-to-work transitions more difficult. Persistently high NEET rates should therefore not be interpreted solely as evidence of individual skills deficits. They reveal interconnected failures affecting education, job creation, social protection, gender equality, and policy coordination. Reducing them requires governments to connect skills policies with credible strategies for private-sector development, employment creation, and the removal of practical barriers that prevent disadvantaged young people from entering education or decent work sustainably.”

“In the north of Bénin, the high rates of NEET result less from a lack of initiatives than from their fragmentation and their weak adaptation to local realities. The youth of Alibori, Atacora, Borgou, and Donga struggle with school dropout, rural poverty, inadequacy of skills, weak access to financing, and predominance of seasonal and informal agricultural activities. On the national scale, around 15.3% of young people in Benin are NEET, against 17.7% of young women, which confirms the weight of gender inequality. The experience of PJUD-BENIN ONG shows that occasional formations are not enough when young people have no capital, no equipment, no access to property and markets. Young women are more affected by domestic responsibilities, early marriages and social norms. The issue is to build genuine pathways into employment, rather than multiplying training programmes that lead nowhere.”

DevelopmentAid: What concrete policies and interventions have proven most effective in moving young people from NEET status into sustainable employment or education and which widely used approaches are failing?

“The strongest interventions accept that youth have multiple barriers and need more than just a certificate. More evidence points to integrated pathways combining market-relevant skills, apprenticeships/workbased learning, career guidance, employment matching, entrepreneurship support, access to finance and social protection. The latest evidence from the World Bank identifies contextual tailoring, broad support, private sector engagement, incentive alignment, and social protection integration as critical features of high-impact employment programs (World Bank, 2026). That reflects what I have seen across Africa and MENA. Youth need pathways, not isolated projects. Such training should relate to actual labor market needs, employers, and realistic income generation prospects. Another approach that consistently fails is training for the sake of training. We can train thousands of young people in skills with little market demand and say we succeeded because certificates have been distributed. Similar problems arise with short donor cycles when programs measure participation rather than whether young people are still earning, learning, or progressing months later. The better way is to link education and skills, employers, finance, mentoring, and social protection while removing barriers for young women like unpaid care responsibilities, mobility, and safety. That should be a straightforward objective: Making young people employable means creating credible routes for them to earn, study and progress.”

“In countries where NEET rates are consistently low, interventionist programs exist alongside broad, long-standing institutional capacity aimed at giving young people, across different socio-economic groups, access to education and formal job market opportunities. Germany’s dual vocational education and training (VET) system is one example. Broad evidence suggests that intensive, multi-component, case-managed support outperforms single-service interventions. Further, early preventive intervention during compulsory schooling, before a young person becomes NEET, works better than trying to solve the problem later. Employer-embedded work experience combined with wraparound support performs really well at a participant-level. However, addressing national NEET levels is a scaling challenge and participant-level success should be read separately from national NEET-rate movement. South Africa’s Youth Employment Service (YES) places youth in twelve-month private-sector placements and reports absorption into further employment of 40-60%. Despite this, South Africa’s national NEET rate rose through the same period YES was operating. Successfully placing roughly 100,000-200,000 youth against a NEET population of approximately 13 million represents a negligible change in the overall statistics. Two approaches that are widely used because they are easy to administer and scale show consistently weak evidence, i.e short, standalone classroom-based training with no employer contact or follow-up, and wage subsidies in lower-capacity administrative settings.”

“The strongest evidence shows that bundled, integrated and layered intervention components outperform isolated components. From firsthand experience designing and implementing gendered economic inclusion programming, I demonstrate that early identification and case management before disengagement entrenches; demand-led vocational training tied to real vacancies and employer involvement: apprenticeships, not placements; paid work experience paired with training and follow-up support; entrepreneurship support bundling finance with mentoring and market access; and youth guarantees with proactive outreach to inactive young women, not just registered jobseekers. What consistently underperforms: classroom training disconnected from vacancies, generic soft-skills courses without credentials, online-only provision, compliance-based job-search mandates without childcare or transport support, and untargeted subsidies that fund jobs that would have existed regardless.”

“Isolated interventions rarely work. Integrated, demand-driven packages do.

What works:

• Integrated programs over single interventions. Combined skills, job-search support, employer connection, and post-placement follow-up.
• Combine entrepreneurship with capital. Uganda’s program offered cash grants to youth groups. Four years on, participants showed substantially higher earnings than controls because the binding constraint was capital, not business knowledge.
• Genuine apprenticeships with employer ownership. Switzerland and Germany’s dual systems allow half of each cohort to train inside firms with a statutory qualification at the end.
• Structured guarantees with an offer of work, training or education within the stated period of leaving school or becoming unemployed.
• Wage subsidies for employment offers with honest caveats, that are time-limited and monitored, not treated as settled evidence.

What is failing:

• Training with no employer demand behind it (a certificate is not a job).
• Projects that end when funding ends, leaving participants where they started.
• Counting participation instead of outcomes.
• Entrepreneurship training without access to capital, markets or formalisation support.
• Public works as a permanent instrument without a training and placement layer.
• Digital programmes that assume devices, connectivity, electricity and digital literacy already exist.”

“Available evidence does not identify a universal solution. The most promising interventions combine early identification of young people at risk of disengagement, personalized guidance, employer-designed technical training, paid apprenticeships or internships, placement services, and post-recruitment support. For disadvantaged youth and potential entrepreneurs, integrated productive-inclusion programs combining training, coaching, finance, grants, and market linkages generally produce more durable outcomes than isolated measures. Germany’s dual vocational system is cited: it combines classroom education with paid workplace training. Participants acquire skills aligned with labour-market needs, recognized qualifications, professional experience, and support toward employment. Cooperation among training institutions, employers, and social partners facilitates school-to-work transitions. Although this model cannot simply be transplanted everywhere, it demonstrates the value of employer involvement, recognized credentials, and genuine employment opportunities. Young women also require affordable childcare, safe transport, flexible schedules, and protection against discrimination. These measures must be supported by policies promoting business growth and labour demand. Conversely, stand-alone theoretical training, generic soft-skills courses, poorly targeted wage subsidies, and temporary public works often deliver weak or short-lived results. Training young people for nonexistent jobs changes their qualifications, not their prospects. Programs should therefore be evaluated by sustained employment, earnings, and job quality rather than enrolment or certificate numbers.”

“Our experience at PJUD-BENIN ONG shows that the most effective interventions start from territorial economic potentialities. In northern Benin, promising sectors include climate-smart agriculture, livestock farming, beekeeping, agro-processing, agroforestry, solar energy, handicrafts, and rural digital services. Approaches combining practical training, apprenticeships, mentoring, start-up capital, market access, and post-placement support yield more sustainable results. Under the leadership of Dr. Cyrille DJOWAMON, agroeconomist and specialist in rural development, PJUD-BENIN supports particularly young people and women through the strengthening of skills, agricultural entrepreneurship, the structuring of organizations, alternative education and access to economic opportunities. The community projects conducted in municipalities such as Gogounou, N’Dali, Bembèrèkè and Dassa-Zoumè have confirmed the importance of associating the beneficiaries, the communes, the technical services and the private sector. On the other hand, standardized training, distributions of equipment without market research and programs measuring only the number of beneficiaries often fail. The decisive indicator must be continued employment or engagement in a viable activity after twelve to twenty-four months.”

DevelopmentAid: What could be the economic and social consequences if this generation remains disconnected from education and work?

“If this generation remains disconnected from education and decent work, the consequences will extend far beyond individual unemployment. We risk creating a prolonged deficit in human capital, productivity and social cohesion at precisely the time many countries need a larger and more productive workforce. The scale is already significant. In 2023, 256 million young people aged 15 to 24 were NEET globally, representing 20.4% of the youth population. Of these, 171 million were young women and 85 million were young men (ILO, 2024). In Africa and MENA, where demographic pressures and labour market constraints are especially acute, sustained exclusion may result in lost productivity, weaker household incomes, greater dependence on informal and insecure work, and increased inequality. These consequences may also interact with protection risks, poverty, displacement, and social exclusion in fragile settings. A huge intergenerational cost exists. Youth who do not enter productive work struggle to become financially independent, to amass assets and to contribute to their families and economies. Countries, meanwhile, lose potential productivity, entrepreneurship, innovation, and tax revenue. This should therefore not be framed simply as a youth employment issue. It is an economic, social & development challenge. Investing in youth is not a welfare intervention. It is an investment in the productive capacity, resilience and stability of societies. Without credible pathways from learning to livelihoods, we will pay a much higher price for exclusion later on.”

“The longer someone stays outside employment or education, the harder re-entry becomes, converting temporary joblessness into permanent labour-market exclusion. At the same time, AI is narrowing the entry-level roles that were normally used to build work experience. As employers shift routine tasks to AI and raise experience requirements for the remaining roles, the number of opportunities for young people to build the required work experience is shrinking. Neither of these pressures operates in isolation from demographics. Old-age dependency ratios are projected to rise sharply across developed economies as working-age populations shrink, at a time when public debt already sits at its highest level since the Second World War. A large disconnected youth population will then become a second dependency burden layered on the first, not producing output or tax revenue, while often still drawing social support. At the same time, governments need every available worker contributing to fund pensions and healthcare for a growing retired population. The result will be fewer workers supporting more dependents, less fiscal capacity to intervene, and a shrinking natural pathway back into employment, resulting in three constraints tightening simultaneously.”

“The costs can become self-reinforcing as young people are 2.8 times more likely to be unemployed or inactive a decade later, 2.5 times more likely to be in low-status work, and face over 50% higher risk of depression or anxiety diagnoses, illustrating how skills, networks, and confidence erode with prolonged disconnection. At the population level, this depresses productivity, tax revenue, and consumption while raising demand for social protection and health spending, squandering the demographic dividend in youth-heavy regions. Inequalities widen along gender, disability, and regional lines, since the same groups cycle repeatedly through low-quality work and inactivity. Socially, sustained exclusion is linked to greater vulnerability to exploitation, irregular migration, and, for young women particularly, early marriage and reduced household bargaining power, deepening intergenerational poverty. Importantly, evidence shows re-entry improves outcomes relative to continued detachment, meaning the trajectory is not fixed, but the window for intervention narrows the longer the disconnection persists.”

“The costs are large, measurable, and long-lasting — making inaction expensive rather than merely regrettable.

Economic costs. Direct fiscal cost. The EU estimates the cost of NEET at over 1% of GDP annually in foregone output and additional transfers. If applied to a large youth-heavy economy, this is a permanent structural drag, not a cyclical one. Early unemployment depresses earnings for a decade or more, independent of later qualifications. The loss does not end when the job starts. Human capital write-off in the youngest regions. Underutilized talents reduce overall productivity and economic output, particularly in countries with youthful populations. Narrower tax base, weaker demand due to fewer contributors and less consumption, hence reducing exactly the revenue governments need to fix the problem.

Social. Institutional trust erosion. When young people are told repeatedly that education leads to opportunity and it does not, confidence in institutions falls. Intergenerational transmission. Children of NEET parents face materially higher odds of the same outcome, converting a cohort problem into a structural one. Gendered dependency. Female NEET status entrenches unpaid care burdens and household dependency, and forfeits the national growth attributable to women’s participation.”

“Prolonged disconnection would reduce potential growth by keeping a share of the working-age population outside productive activity. Young people would accumulate less experience, suffer skills deterioration, and contribute less to production, tax revenues, and social protection systems. Meanwhile, governments could face higher expenditure on income support, healthcare, and labour-market reintegration. These effects may persist because long or repeated NEET spells are associated with lower future earnings and weaker employment prospects. The social consequences would be equally concerning. Financial dependence can delay independent living, stable housing, and family formation. Prolonged inactivity may deepen isolation, damage mental well-being, and weaken trust in public institutions. Existing inequalities could widen because young women, rural populations, persons with disabilities, and disadvantaged households often face greater barriers to education and employment. However, equating NEET status with delinquency or personal failure would be misleading and stigmatizing. The central risk is structural: when education no longer provides a credible pathway to decent employment, the social contract weakens. Society then loses not only income, but also skills, innovation, civic participation, and social cohesion. A generation excluded from opportunity can also become less confident that institutions represent its interests, making economic recovery, political stability, and inclusive development harder to achieve.”

“If young people in northern Benin remain cut off from education and employment for the long term, the country will lose a vital part of its demographic dividend. This situation will diminish productivity, household incomes, agricultural innovation, and the capacity of rural areas to adapt to climate change. It will also perpetuate intergenerational poverty, rural-to-urban migration, and the economic dependence of young women. Our work with communities shows that economic exclusion also fuels discouragement, forced migration, gender-based violence, and a loss of trust in institutions. This threat is particularly concerning in the border regions of Alibori and Atacora, which are already exposed to insecurity from the Sahel and the erosion of livelihoods. Young people lacking prospects can become increasingly vulnerable to trafficking, political exploitation, and recruitment by violent groups. The integration of young people must therefore be viewed as a strategic investment in the rural economy, food security, social cohesion, and peace. Every young person successfully and sustainably integrated into the workforce becomes a source of resilience for their family and community.”

See also: What happens when countries spend more on debt than on education? | Experts’ Opinions

Young professionals who want to step into the international development job market should double their efforts in finding opportunities due to their lack of background experience. Having access to information and the right tools in hand can make this task easier. On the DevelopmentAid job board, young experts can filter openings not only by sector and country, but also by required years of experience, making it easier for junior professionals to find suitable positions in one place. Another important aspect is to increase visibility on the platform, where hundreds of thousands of international organizations and donors are looking for prospective candidates. In order to land permanent or long-term jobs, juniors can start with short-term consultancies that can be found under the tenders and grants for individuals menus. To stay up to date with what is happening in the sector, the news feed section comes in handy, bringing together the latest developments, events, expert opinions, and industry insights in one place. All these tools and many more are available with an Individual Professional Membership, giving experts access to resources designed to support their job search and professional development.