South Carolina’s inflation-adjusted economic output, annual growth, industry structure, and employment context.
Real GDP$287.16B2025 · #24 of 50 · highest first
Annual real GDP growth3.3%2025 · #4 of 50 · highest first
Current-dollar GDP$378.38B2025 · #24 of 50 · highest first
South Carolina over time
Explore South Carolina readings, major events and reviewed actions on the same date scale. South Carolina officeholders appear in separate lanes. National event evidence describes national context; it does not measure a South Carolina effect.
Major events & context · A curated selection, including uncertain effects. Milestone dates do not establish that an event caused a South Carolina change.
Enacted / issuedDid not proceedPending / in progressStatus unclear
Colors show the latest recorded status. Passing one chamber is not enactment. A number groups actions with the same date, body and status.
Real GDP South Carolina · source units
South CarolinaPublished U.S. benchmark
Move across the chart to inspect the nearest observation. Click or tap to keep a reading selected, or focus the chart and use the arrow keys. Hover over or focus a marker to explore; click or tap to pin. Press Escape to clear.
12 of 12 reviewed South Carolina actions match · 11 date markers shown. 44 major events shown separately.
South Carolina · 2025: $287.16B · Rank #24 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: $23.94T
Total value added produced in the state in millions of chained 2017 dollars. Annual estimates; the downloaded BEA snapshot is retained with a source hash. Revisions can change historical values and ranks. Annual observations use December 31; monthly observations use the first of the month. Lines connect consecutive readings and do not supply values between them. Missing observations break the lines.
The timeline combines the corresponding national fact’s reviewed event catalog, labeled National context, with individually reviewed state milestones. State events use primary sources and distinguish signing, effective and filing dates. Each milestone keeps its source-check date, geographical limits and evidence limits. This curated selection is not a complete history.
Date ranges affect events and actions. Action type, status and official-name search affect government records only. Events remain separate from action counts. An event after the latest observation extends context without creating a new reading.
South Carolina · state comparison
South Carolina output and growth
Annual real GDP removes price changes. Annual growth compares annual levels; it is separate from an annualized quarterly growth rate.
South Carolina · 2025$287.16B
South Carolina rank#24among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$23.94TSame measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Real GDP
Total value added produced in the state in millions of chained 2017 dollars.
Annual estimates; the downloaded BEA snapshot is retained with a source hash. Revisions can change historical values and ranks.
Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.
South Carolina
2025 · South Carolina: $287.16B · Rank #24 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: $23.94T · Selected for state comparisonView history and select a period
South Carolina Real GDP history
Period
South Carolina
Compare
2014
$206.08B
2015
$213.21B
2016
$220.56B
2017
$224.94B
2018
$231.65B
2019
$239.01B
2020
$232.67B
2021
$244.08B
2022
$255.6B
2023
$264.96B
2024
$277.96B
2025
$287.16B
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. South Carolina stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. South Carolina has a dark outline.
Lower value · $38.06BHigher value · $3.43TStriped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
South Carolina · $287.16B2025 · Rank #24 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare South Carolina with every state · 50 ranked
Real GDP · 2025 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
California
$3.43T
—
#2
Texas
$2.33T
—
#3
New York
$1.89T
—
#4
Florida
$1.38T
—
#5
Illinois
$948.03B
—
#6
Pennsylvania
$815.87B
—
#7
Ohio
$738.49B
—
#8
Georgia
$719.74B
—
#9
Washington
$715.88B
—
#10
New Jersey
$688.76B
—
#11
North Carolina
$682.83B
—
#12
Massachusetts
$640.79B
—
#13
Virginia
$631.98B
—
#14
Michigan
$575.4B
—
#15
Colorado
$452.78B
—
#16
Arizona
$451.49B
—
#17
Tennessee
$447.66B
—
#18
Maryland
$437.37B
—
#19
Indiana
$422.47B
—
#20
Minnesota
$392.31B
—
#21
Wisconsin
$363.84B
—
#22
Missouri
$362.46B
—
#23
Connecticut
$297.35B
—
#24
South Carolina · your comparison
$287.16B
—
#25
Oregon
$264.75B
—
#26
Louisiana
$263.89B
—
#27
Alabama
$259.46B
—
#28
Utah
$243.04B
—
#29
Kentucky
$239.51B
—
#30
Oklahoma
$216.31B
—
#31
Nevada
$210.1B
—
#32
Iowa
$204.86B
—
#33
Kansas
$178.51B
—
#34
Nebraska
$156.61B
—
#35
Arkansas
$147.93B
—
#36
Mississippi
$123.37B
—
#37
New Mexico
$122.58B
—
#38
Idaho
$103.62B
—
#39
New Hampshire
$99.06B
—
#40
Hawaii
$93.38B
—
#41
Delaware
$89.92B
—
#42
West Virginia
$84.94B
—
#43
Maine
$77.23B
—
#44
Rhode Island
$67.25B
—
#45
North Dakota
$65.27B
—
#46
Montana
$61.08B
—
#47
South Dakota
$59.87B
—
#48
Alaska
$56.34B
—
#49
Wyoming
$40.16B
—
#50
Vermont
$38.06B
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Choose an industry to compare South Carolina’s output with every state. Nominal industry values can be added within a year.
South Carolina · 2025$1.63B
South Carolina rank#35among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$255.93BSame measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting · output
Industry value added, current dollars. The broad industries listed form an exhaustive partition of total GDP.
A large industry output rank can reflect the size of the state. Chained-dollar components should not be added.
Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.
South Carolina
2025 · South Carolina: $1.63B · Rank #35 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: $255.93B · Selected for state comparisonView history and select a period
South Carolina Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting · output history
Period
South Carolina
Compare
2014
$1.14B
2015
$1.1B
2016
$1.07B
2017
$1.21B
2018
$1.16B
2019
$1.09B
2020
$1.04B
2021
$1.52B
2022
$1.94B
2023
$1.63B
2024
$1.73B
2025
$1.63B
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. South Carolina stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. South Carolina has a dark outline.
Lower value · $164.2MHigher value · $50.67BStriped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
South Carolina · $1.63B2025 · Rank #35 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare South Carolina with every state · 50 ranked
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting · output · 2025 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
California
$50.67B
—
#2
Texas
$16.95B
—
#3
Iowa
$14.1B
—
#4
Nebraska
$10.6B
—
#5
Illinois
$9.52B
—
#6
Florida
$8.33B
—
#7
Washington
$8.05B
—
#8
Minnesota
$8.01B
—
#9
Indiana
$7.13B
—
#10
South Dakota
$7.08B
—
#11
Kansas
$7.02B
—
#12
Ohio
$7B
—
#13
Wisconsin
$6.58B
—
#14
Oregon
$6.18B
—
#15
Michigan
$6.02B
—
#16
Missouri
$5.71B
—
#17
North Carolina
$5.55B
—
#18
Idaho
$5.41B
—
#19
Pennsylvania
$4.97B
—
#20
North Dakota
$4.71B
—
#21
Georgia
$4.53B
—
#22
Oklahoma
$4.26B
—
#23
Arkansas
$4.13B
—
#24
Kentucky
$3.75B
—
#25
New York
$3.55B
—
#26
Alabama
$3.29B
—
#27
Mississippi
$2.99B
—
#28
Colorado
$2.98B
—
#29
Arizona
$2.85B
—
#30
Montana
$2.49B
—
#31
Louisiana
$2.42B
—
#32
Virginia
$2.37B
—
#33
Tennessee
$2.01B
—
#34
New Mexico
$1.7B
—
#35
South Carolina · your comparison
$1.63B
—
#36
Utah
$1.59B
—
#37
Maryland
$1.31B
—
#38
New Jersey
$1.27B
—
#39
Maine
$1.2B
—
#40
Wyoming
$888.5M
—
#41
Massachusetts
$869.6M
—
#42
Delaware
$741.1M
—
#43
West Virginia
$561.8M
—
#44
Hawaii
$553.9M
—
#45
Nevada
$551.2M
—
#46
Vermont
$536.1M
—
#47
Alaska
$488.1M
—
#48
Connecticut
$341.8M
—
#49
New Hampshire
$320.1M
—
#50
Rhode Island
$164.2M
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
BEA’s total employment counts jobs, including proprietors, rather than distinct people.
South Carolina · 20253,245,739
South Carolina rank#23among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark218,324,700Same measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Total employment · jobs
BEA annual total full-time and part-time employment, including proprietors. One person can hold multiple jobs.
Separate from residence-based civilian employment in BLS LAUS and from nonfarm payroll employment.
Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.
South Carolina
2025 · South Carolina: 3,245,739 · Rank #23 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 218,324,700 · Selected for state comparisonView history and select a period
South Carolina Total employment · jobs history
Period
South Carolina
Compare
2014
2,564,238
2015
2,636,714
2016
2,700,808
2017
2,759,989
2018
2,844,866
2019
2,883,828
2020
2,827,066
2021
2,940,247
2022
3,059,557
2023
3,131,587
2024
3,229,127
2025
3,245,739
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. South Carolina stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. South Carolina has a dark outline.
Lower value · 439,349Higher value · 25,407,891Striped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
South Carolina · 3,245,7392025 · Rank #23 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare South Carolina with every state · 50 ranked
Total employment · jobs · 2025 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
California
25,407,891
—
#2
Texas
20,639,097
—
#3
Florida
15,174,955
—
#4
New York
13,498,360
—
#5
Illinois
8,197,037
—
#6
Pennsylvania
8,150,272
—
#7
Ohio
7,394,537
—
#8
Georgia
7,184,433
—
#9
North Carolina
6,864,520
—
#10
New Jersey
6,095,348
—
#11
Michigan
5,946,187
—
#12
Virginia
5,789,397
—
#13
Massachusetts
5,020,627
—
#14
Washington
4,879,224
—
#15
Tennessee
4,633,711
—
#16
Arizona
4,455,141
—
#17
Colorado
4,231,488
—
#18
Indiana
4,213,622
—
#19
Maryland
4,009,451
—
#20
Missouri
3,998,549
—
#21
Minnesota
3,914,167
—
#22
Wisconsin
3,855,203
—
#23
South Carolina · your comparison
3,245,739
—
#24
Alabama
2,966,686
—
#25
Louisiana
2,831,737
—
#26
Kentucky
2,718,290
—
#27
Oregon
2,671,758
—
#28
Oklahoma
2,466,719
—
#29
Utah
2,458,247
—
#30
Connecticut
2,424,541
—
#31
Nevada
2,163,825
—
#32
Iowa
2,122,389
—
#33
Kansas
2,007,083
—
#34
Arkansas
1,811,561
—
#35
Mississippi
1,713,294
—
#36
Nebraska
1,410,465
—
#37
Idaho
1,238,642
—
#38
New Mexico
1,183,906
—
#39
New Hampshire
942,254
—
#40
Hawaii
925,451
—
#41
West Virginia
910,570
—
#42
Maine
898,379
—
#43
Montana
761,061
—
#44
Rhode Island
690,505
—
#45
Delaware
678,218
—
#46
South Dakota
665,420
—
#47
North Dakota
605,276
—
#48
Alaska
472,008
—
#49
Wyoming
451,906
—
#50
Vermont
439,349
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Explore current officeholders and explicitly reviewed historical executive officials, labeled at the time of their actions. Timeline dates, action type, status and search also filter this list. Read any record’s summary, latest recorded status and official evidence below, or open it beside the timeline.
12 of 12 reviewed South Carolina actions · newest first
May 10, 2017 · H. 3516 · SC Infrastructure and Economic Development Reform Act · Enacted over veto · Act 40South Carolina Legislature · H. 3516
SC Infrastructure and Economic Development Reform Act
May 10, 2017 · Enacted over veto · Act 40
Rep. G. Murrell Smith, Jr. · Named bill author
FactVote reviewed summary
Act 40 phased in a 12-cent-per-gallon motor-fuel user-fee increase over six years to fund infrastructure. It became law over the governor’s veto.
Both chambers overrode the governor’s veto on May 10, 2017. The official bill history identifies Act No. 40.
Why this record is included
Act 40 increased the state motor-fuel user fee by 2 cents per gallon each July from 2017 through 2022, bringing the 16-cent base to 28 cents. This is a South Carolina tax component of tax-inclusive pump prices. The General Assembly overrode Governor McMaster’s veto on May 10, 2017. The law does not set the full gasoline price or explain the six-state Lower Atlantic average.
Retained South Carolina evidence context: Lower Atlantic regular gasoline price. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Section 2 schedules six annual two-cent increases beginning July 1, 2017, and directs the additional revenue to the Infrastructure Maintenance Trust Fund.
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑May 9, 2017 · H. 3516 veto · Veto of the SC Infrastructure and Economic Development Reform Act · Veto overriddenGovernor · H. 3516 veto
Veto of the SC Infrastructure and Economic Development Reform Act
May 9, 2017 · Veto overridden
Gov. Henry McMaster · Vetoed
FactVote reviewed summary
Governor McMaster vetoed H. 3516’s fuel-tax increase on May 9, 2017. Both chambers overrode the veto on May 10, allowing the law to take effect.
Veto issued May 9, 2017; overridden in the House and Senate on May 10, 2017.
Why this record is included
Governor McMaster vetoed H. 3516 on May 9, 2017, opposing its gasoline-tax increase and arguing for different infrastructure funding reforms. Both chambers overrode the veto the next day. The veto documents his action on a South Carolina gasoline-tax component; it did not prevent the law from taking effect and does not establish any effect on the August 2026 regional gasoline price.
Retained South Carolina evidence context: Lower Atlantic regular gasoline price. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
The governor’s May 9 veto message is printed in the May 10 House Journal. The bill history records successful overrides in both chambers on May 10.
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Oct 30, 2015 · Executive Order 2015-28 · National Guard support for emergency infrastructure repairs · Issued historical instrument; implementation unverifiedGovernor · Executive Order 2015-28
National Guard support for emergency infrastructure repairs
Oct 30, 2015 · Issued historical instrument; implementation unverified
Nikki R. Haley · Issued · historical officeholder
Reviewed historical executive instrument
The order placed specified National Guard units and personnel on State Active Duty for emergency infrastructure repairs and directed equipment and personnel to support Clarendon County, Columbia and other local governments determined before November 2, 2015. Operations were to be coordinated with local officials, SCEMD and FEMA. Activated personnel could remain until identified missions were completed, but not past November 25; the order expired no later than November 25, 2015. The order took effect immediately on October 30. It establishes authorization and conditions, not proof that every mission was completed or a verified deployment count. The online State Register reproduces this instrument; its disclaimer says the printed version controls and does not warrant online accuracy or completeness. The separately indexed flood-order archive PDFs returned 404. Historical issuance is described; all later instruments, original statutory authority and implementation remain separate reviews. This historical instrument does not establish actual deliveries, completed recovery, changes in the displayed measure or displacement of every federal requirement. Later amendments, extensions, current law and implementation remain unverified. The operative directive supports emergency infrastructure repairs, without measured output or completed-project evidence.
Issued 2015-10-30. Operations were to be coordinated with local officials, SCEMD and FEMA. Activated personnel could remain until identified missions were completed, but not past November 25; the order expired no later than November 25, 2015. The order took effect immediately on October 30. It establishes authorization and conditions, not proof that every mission was completed or a verified deployment count. The online State Register reproduces this instrument; its disclaimer says the printed version controls and does not warrant online accuracy or completeness. The separately indexed flood-order archive PDFs returned 404. Historical issuance is described; all later instruments, original statutory authority and implementation remain separate reviews. This historical instrument does not establish actual deliveries, completed recovery, changes in the displayed measure or displacement of every federal requirement. Later amendments, extensions, current law and implementation remain unverified.
Why this record is included
The operative directive supports emergency infrastructure repairs, without measured output or completed-project evidence.
Retained South Carolina evidence context: health · reviewed policy context · real-gdp · reviewed policy context. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
The order placed specified National Guard units and personnel on State Active Duty for emergency infrastructure repairs and directed equipment and personnel to support Clarendon County, Columbia and other local governments determined before November 2, 2015.
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Oct 30, 2015 · Executive Order 2015-29 · Separate freight and driver-hour periods for flood recovery · Issued historical instrument; implementation unverifiedGovernor · Executive Order 2015-29
Separate freight and driver-hour periods for flood recovery
Oct 30, 2015 · Issued historical instrument; implementation unverified
Nikki R. Haley · Issued · historical officeholder
Reviewed historical executive instrument
The order provided specified freight and driver hours-of-service relief for flood-recovery equipment, materials, supplies, food, fuel, timber, debris and other response items. Continuous non-interstate limits remained 12 feet wide, 13 feet 6 inches high and 90,000 pounds, with no crossing of posted bridges. Above-limit vehicles needed SCDOT route permits. Safe operation, required insurance, emergency documentation, oversize signs, markings, flags and escorts remained conditions. Commercial Driver’s License and financial requirements were expressly not exempted. The governor executed the order October 30; its effect began October 31, 2015. Driver hours-of-service relief expired November 29, 2015. Registration, permitting, dimension, weight and load relief expired January 30, 2016. These are separate expiration dates, not one 30-day blanket exemption. The online State Register reproduces this instrument; its disclaimer says the printed version controls and does not warrant online accuracy or completeness. The separately indexed flood-order archive PDFs returned 404. Historical issuance is described; all later instruments, original statutory authority and implementation remain separate reviews. This historical instrument does not establish actual deliveries, completed recovery, changes in the displayed measure or displacement of every federal requirement. Later amendments, extensions, current law and implementation remain unverified. The order concerns flood-recovery freight and transport operations; no output, delivered-volume or price outcome is proved.
Issued 2015-10-30. Continuous non-interstate limits remained 12 feet wide, 13 feet 6 inches high and 90,000 pounds, with no crossing of posted bridges. Above-limit vehicles needed SCDOT route permits. Safe operation, required insurance, emergency documentation, oversize signs, markings, flags and escorts remained conditions. Commercial Driver’s License and financial requirements were expressly not exempted. The governor executed the order October 30; its effect began October 31, 2015. Driver hours-of-service relief expired November 29, 2015. Registration, permitting, dimension, weight and load relief expired January 30, 2016. These are separate expiration dates, not one 30-day blanket exemption. The online State Register reproduces this instrument; its disclaimer says the printed version controls and does not warrant online accuracy or completeness. The separately indexed flood-order archive PDFs returned 404. Historical issuance is described; all later instruments, original statutory authority and implementation remain separate reviews. This historical instrument does not establish actual deliveries, completed recovery, changes in the displayed measure or displacement of every federal requirement. Later amendments, extensions, current law and implementation remain unverified.
Why this record is included
The order concerns flood-recovery freight and transport operations; no output, delivered-volume or price outcome is proved.
Retained South Carolina evidence context: energy · reviewed policy context · real-gdp · reviewed policy context. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
The order provided specified freight and driver hours-of-service relief for flood-recovery equipment, materials, supplies, food, fuel, timber, debris and other response items.
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Oct 20, 2015 · Executive Order 2015-27 · Paid leave for state employees affected by emergency closures · Issued historical instrument; implementation unverifiedGovernor · Executive Order 2015-27
Paid leave for state employees affected by emergency closures
Oct 20, 2015 · Issued historical instrument; implementation unverified
Nikki R. Haley · Issued · historical officeholder
Reviewed historical executive instrument
The order granted leave with pay to affected state employees absent as directed during the listed emergency state-office closures, delays and early releases. County closure dates and agency-specific Attachment A entries define the covered circumstances. It was issued October 20, 2015 with immediate effect. Chief Legal Counsel Holly G. Pisarik’s October 23 clarification grants a full day for Charleston County on October 2, replacing the noon closure, and adds a full day for Orangeburg County on October 5. Attachment A identifies closures at universities, technical colleges, the School for the Deaf and the Blind, health-agency offices, juvenile-justice offices, courts and SCDOT headquarters. It distinguishes full days, delays, partial hours and the School’s second and third shifts. The leave authorization covers affected state employees, not all private workers or every resident of a listed county. It does not establish actual payroll amounts, unemployment-rate changes, recovered learning, completed medical care or restored court services. The online State Register reproduces this instrument; its disclaimer says the printed version controls and does not warrant online accuracy or completeness. The separately indexed flood-order archive PDFs returned 404. Historical issuance is described; all later instruments, original statutory authority and implementation remain separate reviews. This historical instrument does not establish actual deliveries, completed recovery, changes in the displayed measure or displacement of every federal requirement. Later amendments, extensions, current law and implementation remain unverified. The paid-leave authorization concerns disruptions to state operations, including transportation offices; no GDP effect is established.
Issued 2015-10-20. It was issued October 20, 2015 with immediate effect. Chief Legal Counsel Holly G. Pisarik’s October 23 clarification grants a full day for Charleston County on October 2, replacing the noon closure, and adds a full day for Orangeburg County on October 5. Attachment A identifies closures at universities, technical colleges, the School for the Deaf and the Blind, health-agency offices, juvenile-justice offices, courts and SCDOT headquarters. It distinguishes full days, delays, partial hours and the School’s second and third shifts. The leave authorization covers affected state employees, not all private workers or every resident of a listed county. It does not establish actual payroll amounts, unemployment-rate changes, recovered learning, completed medical care or restored court services. The online State Register reproduces this instrument; its disclaimer says the printed version controls and does not warrant online accuracy or completeness. The separately indexed flood-order archive PDFs returned 404. Historical issuance is described; all later instruments, original statutory authority and implementation remain separate reviews. This historical instrument does not establish actual deliveries, completed recovery, changes in the displayed measure or displacement of every federal requirement. Later amendments, extensions, current law and implementation remain unverified.
Why this record is included
The paid-leave authorization concerns disruptions to state operations, including transportation offices; no GDP effect is established.
Retained South Carolina evidence context: crime · reviewed policy context · health · reviewed policy context · income-taxes · reviewed policy context · education · reviewed policy context · real-gdp · reviewed policy context · unemployment-rate · reviewed policy context. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
The order granted leave with pay to affected state employees absent as directed during the listed emergency state-office closures, delays and early releases. County closure dates and agency-specific Attachment A entries define the covered circumstances.
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Oct 19, 2015 · Executive Order 2015-26 · State Disaster Recovery Coordinator appointment · Issued historical instrument; implementation unverifiedGovernor · Executive Order 2015-26
State Disaster Recovery Coordinator appointment
Oct 19, 2015 · Issued historical instrument; implementation unverified
Nikki R. Haley · Issued · historical officeholder
Reviewed historical executive instrument
The order appointed Kevin A. Shwedo as State Disaster Recovery Coordinator to work with the federal coordinator, federal agencies, local governments, businesses, nonprofits and other organizations on short- and long-term plans for federal disaster counties. Recommendations to the governor were to address community planning and capacity, economic recovery, infrastructure, natural and cultural resources, health and social services, and housing recovery. The governor said resources would be directed as deemed necessary. No appropriated dollar amount, completed project or measured recovery result is specified. Issuance and immediate effect were October 19, 2015. The online State Register reproduces this instrument; its disclaimer says the printed version controls and does not warrant online accuracy or completeness. The separately indexed flood-order archive PDFs returned 404. Historical issuance is described; all later instruments, original statutory authority and implementation remain separate reviews. This historical instrument does not establish actual deliveries, completed recovery, changes in the displayed measure or displacement of every federal requirement. Later amendments, extensions, current law and implementation remain unverified. The coordinator’s mandated assessment expressly includes economic and infrastructure recovery.
Issued 2015-10-19. Recommendations to the governor were to address community planning and capacity, economic recovery, infrastructure, natural and cultural resources, health and social services, and housing recovery. The governor said resources would be directed as deemed necessary. No appropriated dollar amount, completed project or measured recovery result is specified. Issuance and immediate effect were October 19, 2015. The online State Register reproduces this instrument; its disclaimer says the printed version controls and does not warrant online accuracy or completeness. The separately indexed flood-order archive PDFs returned 404. Historical issuance is described; all later instruments, original statutory authority and implementation remain separate reviews. This historical instrument does not establish actual deliveries, completed recovery, changes in the displayed measure or displacement of every federal requirement. Later amendments, extensions, current law and implementation remain unverified.
Why this record is included
The coordinator’s mandated assessment expressly includes economic and infrastructure recovery.
Retained South Carolina evidence context: health · reviewed policy context · housing-borrowing · reviewed policy context · real-gdp · reviewed policy context. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
The order appointed Kevin A. Shwedo as State Disaster Recovery Coordinator to work with the federal coordinator, federal agencies, local governments, businesses, nonprofits and other organizations on short- and long-term plans for federal disaster counties.
Records come from published fact relationships or reviewed topic records with official supporting evidence and verified South Carolina officeholder attribution. Historical executive officials require evidence tied to the action date and are excluded from incumbent proposals. Inclusion follows an explicit topic review, a related state fact, or the action’s title and supporting evidence. Explicit topic reviews take priority; repeated actions use the most recent explicit review for this topic. Duplicate actions attached to several facts appear once. This topic match is not a new finding that an action caused a result, and the reviewed collection is selective. Collection reviewed Oct 6, 2026.
What candidates are saying
Explore statements about GDP, economic growth and production from FactVote’s South Carolina candidate profiles. Compare candidates within each recorded race, with each person’s matching statements kept together. These are candidate and campaign statements, not verified outcomes.
6 statements from 6 candidates
2026 South Carolina Governor — General Election
1 candidate with matching statements · 1 statement
South Carolina’s roads and bridges are crumbling, and it’s past time to fix them. Our state’s growth demands serious investment in roads, bridges, and infrastructure. Alan Wilson will make infrastructure a priority, ensuring South Carolina is not only prepared for continued economic development and …
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Transportation and infrastructure
Candidate campaign source
South Carolina’s roads and bridges are crumbling, and it’s past time to fix them. Our state’s growth demands serious investment in roads, bridges, and infrastructure. Alan Wilson will make infrastructure a priority, ensuring South Carolina is not only prepared for continued economic development and population growth, but that families can spend more time at home and less time stuck in traffic. As part of his Families First Audit Initiative, he will modernize the Department of Transportation, demand transparency, streamline project timelines, and make sure every region of the state benefits from long-overdue improvements. Wilson understands rural communities have different infrastructure needs than urban communities. But we can’t prioritize one over the other–they both need attention.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
Joe Wilson supports an all-of-the-above energy strategy that strengthens America’s grid, lowers costs, and promotes innovation for American energy independence.. He is a leading voice for expanding energy infrastructure—including small modular reactors, next-generation nuclear technology, and respon…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Transportation and infrastructure
Candidate campaign source
Joe Wilson supports an all-of-the-above energy strategy that strengthens America’s grid, lowers costs, and promotes innovation for American energy independence.. He is a leading voice for expanding energy infrastructure—including small modular reactors, next-generation nuclear technology, and responsible domestic production. By investing in modern, reliable energy systems, Joe is working to protect national security, create good jobs, and keep South Carolina at the forefront of America’s energy future.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 23, 2026
This section matches specific GDP, economic growth and production terms in retained, attributed source text from published South Carolina candidate profiles. A profile heading or biography alone does not qualify. The Florida geography is fixed; saved state preferences cannot change these results. A mention can concern a community or group rather than Florida’s statewide measure.
Matching is automatic and does not establish a candidate’s stance, the accuracy of a claim, or an effect on the measured result. Results are grouped by recorded race, then by candidate name. Within each candidate, the matching issue mentions appear first. Only candidates with matching retained statements are shown; this is not a complete race roster. Repeated identical text for the same candidate is shown once. Coverage follows the existing state profiles and is not a complete record of all candidates or everything they have said. Review dates are not statement dates.
South Carolina incumbents
What incumbents are proposing
Explore reviewed bills sponsored by current South Carolina legislators and South Carolina’s congressional delegation, plus retained proposals from South Carolina’s governor and agencies. Each record keeps its latest recorded status and official evidence.
0 matching sponsorships or proposals · 0 South Carolina incumbents. These filters apply only to this section.
No retained proposals match these filters. A missing record does not mean an incumbent has taken no action.
What sponsorship and proposal counts tell us
Only current South Carolina officeholders retained in the reviewed collection qualify. Bills require a recorded primary sponsorship; cosponsors and signing officials are excluded from sponsorship counts. An official introducer recorded as acting by request is labeled “Introduced by request”; that procedural role does not establish personal policy endorsement. Governor and agency records qualify when recorded as proposed. A separately verified governor transmittal can also establish an original proposal whose latest status reflects its later outcome. Signing an enacted law alone does not establish a proposal. A record appearing under several facts is counted once per officeholder. A bill with multiple primary sponsors appears under each recorded sponsor.
Enacted bills, adopted resolutions and unsuccessful measures remain visible as proposal history. Passing one chamber is not enactment. These counts do not measure effectiveness or prove that an action changed a South Carolina statistic. Collection reviewed Oct 6, 2026.
Sources & methods
Every section retains its primary sources, units, reporting periods and comparison limits. Maps, graphs and tables use the same observation and cohort. All 50 states are listed; D.C. and territories are excluded. Missing and suppressed values remain unavailable and never become zero.
#1 is the highest measured value. Equal source values share a rank and leave gaps (1, 2, 2, 4). Ranks use source precision and are descriptive, not a score of the state. Survey uncertainty and reporting coverage can limit comparisons. Published U.S. benchmarks are used where available; a state average is not substituted.
South Carolina snapshots and fiscal sources keep their own dates and accounting scope. National events and federal distribution explainers describe national context. Actions and statements are filtered to South Carolina, retain their reviewed evidence, and do not establish that a policy caused a measured change.
Retained state source collections assembled October 5, 2026. Original review and source dates remain visible. Refreshing this page does not refresh an official data release.