Mississippi vs South Carolina on USAspending: $2.88B vs $3.85B

South Carolina’s larger stock, Mississippi’s hotter ratio

South Carolina’s $3.85B stacked total is about 1.34 times Mississippi’s $2.88B. South Carolina’s Census count of 5,478,831 is about 1.86 times Mississippi’s 2,943,045. Intensity therefore flips: $115.31 per capita in Mississippi and $83.98 in South Carolina. The smaller state concentrates $2.88B on fewer people. The larger state spreads $3.85B on more people. Those ratios are packet figures of USAspending.gov obligations beside Census population, not outlays per resident.

Mississippi also files more awards, 233,003 against 129,440. Ship building and repairing as a lead NAICS can generate a long action list. South Carolina’s 129,440 rows on a larger $3.85B stock are busy, but they are not the busiest file in this pair.

This is a two-direction comparison: dollars and recency for South Carolina, awards and per capita for Mississippi.

Shipyard repair versus biologics manufacturing

Mississippi’s lead NAICS is ship building and repairing. South Carolina’s lead NAICS is biological product (except diagnostic) manufacturing. Shipyard work is the peak on Mississippi’s $2.88B and 233,003 awards. Biologics manufacturing is the peak on South Carolina’s $3.85B and 129,440 awards. Those labels are the largest slices, not complete industrial profiles.

The Mississippi and South Carolina state hubs list agencies and recipients. Both peaks are USAspending.gov obligation mixes. Neither peak is an outlay series.

FY2026: $460.1M in South Carolina, $339.4M in Mississippi

Fiscal year 2026 obligations are $460.1M in South Carolina and $339.4M in Mississippi. Recency follows the stacked ranking. $460.1M is about 1.36 times $339.4M, close to the all-years 1.34-times gap of $3.85B versus $2.88B. The latest year does not reverse the dollar ranking.

Read FY2026 as an obligation year slice. Do not divide $460.1M or $339.4M by 129,440 or 233,003 all-years awards. Spending per capita of $83.98 and $115.31 already uses Census counts of 5,478,831 and 2,943,045.

233,003 Mississippi awards on a smaller dollar stock

Mississippi’s 233,003 awards are about 1.80 times South Carolina’s 129,440. Mississippi’s $2.88B is smaller than South Carolina’s $3.85B. More actions sit on fewer stacked dollars. That pattern fits a shipyard-heavy peak generating many actions. It does not put Mississippi ahead on stock or on FY2026.

Population does the rest of the intensity work. 2,943,045 versus 5,478,831, combined with $2.88B versus $3.85B, produces $115.31 versus $83.98. Rows, people, and dollars have to be read as three columns.

Read this pair as a two-way split rather than as a single ranking. South Carolina takes $3.85B, 5,478,831 residents, and $460.1M in FY2026. Mississippi takes 233,003 awards against 129,440 and $115.31 per capita against $83.98 on 2,943,045 residents. Ship building and repairing versus biological product manufacturing is the industrial contrast on $2.88B and $3.85B. A Gulf shipyard list can be longer and still trail on stacked dollars. A Lowcountry biologics file can be larger in dollars and still cooler per resident. Obligations, not outlays.

How to read Mississippi versus South Carolina

Read South Carolina first on stacked stock ($3.85B vs $2.88B), population (5,478,831 vs 2,943,045), and FY2026 ($460.1M vs $339.4M). Read Mississippi first on spending per capita ($115.31 vs $83.98) and awards (233,003 vs 129,440). Note ship building versus biologics manufacturing. All cuts are obligations.

The comparison hub holds the tables. The Mississippi and South Carolina hubs hold state detail. Outlays stay off this page.

Gulf shipyard rows versus Lowcountry biologics dollars

Mississippi’s ship building and repairing peak and South Carolina’s biological product manufacturing peak are the industrial contrast in this pair. The shipyard label sits on 233,003 awards and $2.88B. The biologics label sits on 129,440 awards and $3.85B. More Gulf actions sit on fewer stacked dollars. That is a reading rule, not a judgment about either industry. Employment, output, and cash outlays are not in these facts.

Spending per capita of $115.31 in Mississippi and $83.98 in South Carolina uses Census counts of 2,943,045 and 5,478,831. FY2026 obligations of $339.4M and $460.1M follow the stacked ranking. All of those figures are USAspending.gov obligations. The Mississippi and South Carolina state hubs list agencies and recipients. The comparison hub holds the tables. Mississippi’s $2.88B and South Carolina’s $3.85B stay comparable only as USAspending.gov obligations.

Questions

Does Mississippi or South Carolina have more federal spending?

South Carolina leads stacked USAspending.gov obligations $3.85B to Mississippi’s $2.88B. Mississippi leads spending per capita, $115.31 versus $83.98, on 2,943,045 residents against South Carolina’s 5,478,831. Mississippi has more awards (233,003 vs 129,440). FY2026 obligations are $339.4M in Mississippi and $460.1M in South Carolina.

Why does Mississippi rank higher per capita?

Mississippi’s $2.88B sits on 2,943,045 residents; South Carolina’s $3.85B sits on 5,478,831. The smaller Census count produces $115.31 per capita against $83.98. The ratios are packet figures on USAspending.gov obligations, not outlays per resident. Cite only the packet ratios; do not treat them as cash per resident or as a forecast.

What industries lead in Mississippi and South Carolina?

Mississippi’s top industry is ship building and repairing. South Carolina’s is biological product (except diagnostic) manufacturing. Those labels sit on $2.88B and $3.85B. Award counts are 233,003 in Mississippi and 129,440 in South Carolina. Those NAICS labels are the largest slices on the stacked stocks, not complete industrial profiles.

Are Mississippi vs South Carolina figures Treasury outlays?

No. The $2.88B and $3.85B totals, and FY2026 amounts of $339.4M and $460.1M, are USAspending.gov obligations. Outlays are cash payments and can lag. Spending per capita ($115.31 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.