Kansas vs South Carolina on USAspending: $2.91B vs $3.85B

Plains systems work against a Lowcountry biologics peak

South Carolina’s $3.85B stacked total is about 1.32 times Kansas’s $2.91B. South Carolina also has the larger Census count, 5,478,831 versus 2,970,606, about 1.84 times. Intensity stays in the same direction as the stock, but the gap is narrower: $83.98 per capita in South Carolina and $67.40 in Kansas. Those ratios are packet figures of USAspending.gov obligations beside Census population. They are not outlays per resident.

Award counts follow the dollar ranking. South Carolina files 129,440 actions; Kansas files 71,423. About 1.81 times as many rows sit on about 1.32 times the dollars. South Carolina’s file is both larger and busier. Kansas’s $2.91B remains a substantial Plains stock on a smaller population.

Keep $3.85B and $2.91B on the obligation definition. This pair does not reverse on recency or on intensity; it is a same-direction comparison with a biologics-versus-systems industry split.

Computer systems design versus biological product manufacturing

Kansas’s lead NAICS is computer systems design services. South Carolina’s lead NAICS is biological product (except diagnostic) manufacturing. Systems-design work is Kansas’s peak on $2.91B. Biologics manufacturing is South Carolina’s peak on $3.85B. Those labels are the largest slices, not the entire mix of either state.

The Kansas and South Carolina state hubs list agencies and recipients behind the peaks. Both peaks are USAspending.gov obligation mixes, not outlay mixes.

FY2026: $460.1M in South Carolina, $200.2M in Kansas

Fiscal year 2026 obligations are $460.1M in South Carolina and $200.2M in Kansas. Recency follows the stacked ranking. $460.1M is about 2.30 times $200.2M, a wider relative gap than the all-years $3.85B versus $2.91B. South Carolina’s lead is larger in the latest year than in the stacked file.

Read FY2026 as an obligation year slice. Do not divide $460.1M or $200.2M by 129,440 or 71,423 all-years awards. Spending per capita of $83.98 and $67.40 already uses Census counts of 5,478,831 and 2,970,606.

Population, awards, and dollars point the same way

South Carolina leads on stacked stock ($3.85B vs $2.91B), awards (129,440 vs 71,423), population (5,478,831 vs 2,970,606), spending per capita ($83.98 vs $67.40), and FY2026 ($460.1M vs $200.2M). Kansas does not take any of those five columns. The analytical interest is the industry split and the modest per-capita gap relative to the population gap.

A 1.84-times population advantage yields only a 1.25-times per-capita advantage ($83.98 / $67.40). Kansas’s smaller file is not far behind on intensity even though it trails on every headline column.

Kansas’s $2.91B, 71,423 awards, 2,970,606 residents, $67.40 per capita, and $200.2M in FY2026 form a complete Plains file even while trailing South Carolina on every column. South Carolina’s $3.85B, 129,440 awards, 5,478,831 residents, $83.98 per capita, and $460.1M in FY2026 are the larger Lowcountry file. Computer systems design services versus biological product manufacturing remains the industry contrast. Same-direction rankings still require those five columns plus the NAICS peaks. All figures are USAspending.gov obligations, not Treasury outlays.

How to read Kansas versus South Carolina

Read South Carolina first on stock, awards, population, per capita, and FY2026. Read Kansas as the smaller Plains file with a computer-systems peak on $2.91B. Note biologics manufacturing versus computer systems design. All cuts are USAspending.gov obligations.

The comparison hub holds the tables. The Kansas and South Carolina hubs hold state detail. Outlays are not substituted.

A same-direction pair still needs four columns

South Carolina leads Kansas on stacked obligations ($3.85B vs $2.91B), awards (129,440 vs 71,423), population (5,478,831 vs 2,970,606), spending per capita ($83.98 vs $67.40), and FY2026 ($460.1M vs $200.2M). Same-direction rankings are easy to over-read as a single story. The industry split still matters: computer systems design services in Kansas versus biological product manufacturing in South Carolina. Those peaks sit on different mixes even when every headline column points the same way.

The modest per-capita gap ($83.98 vs $67.40) relative to the population gap (5,478,831 vs 2,970,606) is the other reason to keep four columns. Kansas’s smaller file is not far behind on intensity. All figures are USAspending.gov obligations, not outlays. The Kansas and South Carolina hubs list agencies and recipients. Kansas’s $2.91B and South Carolina’s $3.85B remain comparable only because both are obligations.

Questions

Does Kansas or South Carolina have more federal spending?

South Carolina leads stacked USAspending.gov obligations $3.85B to Kansas’s $2.91B. South Carolina also leads spending per capita, $83.98 versus $67.40, on 5,478,831 residents against Kansas’s 2,970,606. South Carolina has more awards (129,440 vs 71,423). FY2026 obligations are $460.1M in South Carolina and $200.2M in Kansas.

Is Kansas close to South Carolina on a per-capita basis?

Spending per capita is $67.40 in Kansas and $83.98 in South Carolina. That gap is narrower than the population gap of 2,970,606 versus 5,478,831. Stacked obligations remain $2.91B versus $3.85B. The ratios are packet figures on USAspending.gov obligations, not outlays.

What industries lead in Kansas and South Carolina?

Kansas’s top industry is computer systems design services. South Carolina’s is biological product (except diagnostic) manufacturing. Those labels sit on $2.91B and $3.85B. Award counts are 71,423 in Kansas and 129,440 in South Carolina. Those NAICS labels are the largest slices on the stacked stocks, not complete industrial profiles.

Are Kansas vs South Carolina figures Treasury outlays?

No. The $2.91B and $3.85B totals, and FY2026 amounts of $200.2M and $460.1M, are USAspending.gov obligations. Outlays are cash payments and can lag. Spending per capita ($67.40 vs $83.98) uses Census population where present. Spending per capita uses Census population where present and should not be read as cash per resident.