The ESI measures countries’ “distance to the ideal” performance. This ideal performance is chosen as the highest achieved by any country over a period of 7 years. The ideal performance is scaled to be 100 and the scores of all countries are then computed and compared to that. Basis of the ESI are 15 individual indicators from various international datasets. The scores are calculated across countries at the indicators’ level. The scores are then averaged at the various layers and finally the Index score is formed. To illustrate, an Index (or pillar, sub-pillar etc.) score of 65 suggests that the country has reached 65% of the ideal performance. Thus, there is still 35% (100-65) room for improvement. A score of 100 corresponds to achieving the ‘frontier’, that is an aspirational target performance for that indicator. A score of 0 corresponds to a lowest-case performance. This page shows specific information on the scores achieved by the chosen country across pillars, sub-pillars and indicators. Below, you can find a short commentary on country’s skills system performance over time and the ESI 2020 scores.


2022 scores and progress over time

Latvia ranks 17th in the 2022 release remaining at the same position as in 2020 and still belongs to the “middle-achieving” group. It has an average performance in all pillars, ranking 19th in skills development, 10th in skills activation and 20th in skills matching.

Latvia ranks 19th in skills development, showing a good level of educational attainment because of a 6th rank in “upper secondary education (and above)”. However, it doesn’t perform so well in other indicators such as “VET students” and “high digital skills”, where it ranks 22nd and 26th respectively.

Latvia ranks 10th in skills activation and is characterised by fairly good activity rates (ranks 14th and 6th for the 20-24 and 25-54 cohorts respectively), but less good performances in the transition to work, as it ranks 21st in “recent graduates in employment” sub-pillar.

Latvia ranks 20th in skills matching, due to a poor score in “low-waged earners (ISCED 5-8)” (rank 21st) and average scores in the other indicators in this pillar, with “qualification mismatch” showing the best ranking (rank 8th).