All 50 US States Ranked by GDP – The Complete 2025 Economic Power List – NCHStats

United States Economic Landscape: A Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) Perspective

Introduction: Economic Growth and Regional Disparities

The United States economy, with a nominal Gross Domestic Product (GDP) exceeding $29 trillion in 2024, presents a complex mosaic of 50 distinct state economies. An analysis of this economic landscape through the lens of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) reveals significant disparities in achieving inclusive and sustainable growth. This report examines state-level economic data, focusing on how regional performance aligns with key objectives, particularly SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure), and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

Analysis of Nominal GDP and Contribution to SDG 8

Concentration of Economic Output

A small number of states disproportionately drive the national economy, highlighting a concentration of economic power that has implications for balanced national development under SDG 8. The top three states by nominal GDP represent a significant portion of the total U.S. output.

• California: $4.103 trillion
• Texas: $2.709 trillion
• New York: $2.297 trillion

The combined output of these three states exceeds 30% of the national total. California’s economy alone is comparable to the fifth-largest national economy in the world. This concentration, while a driver of overall growth, also introduces systemic risks, where downturns in key regional sectors can disproportionately impact the entire nation’s progress toward stable economic growth.

Economies of Limited Scale and Vulnerability

At the lower end of the economic spectrum, several states face significant challenges in achieving the targets of SDG 8. These states often exhibit limited economic diversification, making them vulnerable to external shocks.

1. Vermont: $45.7 billion
2. Wyoming: $53.0 billion
3. Alaska: $69.9 billion

States like Wyoming and Alaska demonstrate high dependency on the mining and oil and gas sectors. This reliance on commodity-based industries ties their economic health to volatile global price cycles, undermining efforts to build resilient infrastructure and promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization as outlined in SDG 9.

Productivity, Inequality, and Decent Work (SDG 8 & SDG 10)

GDP Per Capita as a Measure of Productivity

GDP per capita offers a clearer metric for resident productivity and economic well-being. States leading in this area are often hubs of innovation and high-value services, aligning with the aims of SDG 9 to foster innovation. However, high productivity does not always translate to reduced inequality (SDG 10) or universal decent work (SDG 8).

High-Productivity States and Associated Challenges

• New York: $117,332 per capita
• Massachusetts: $110,561 per capita
• Washington: $108,468 per capita

These states benefit from advanced technology, finance, and professional service sectors. However, this prosperity is often accompanied by challenges that conflict with broader SDG targets:

• Inequality (SDG 10): High costs of living, particularly housing, can erode the real income of lower-skilled workers, exacerbating inequality within these prosperous states.
• Unemployment (SDG 8): High-productivity economies can create segmented labor markets. California, a productivity leader, reported a high unemployment rate of 5.5% in August 2025, suggesting that economic growth is not fully inclusive.

Low-Productivity Regions and Structural Barriers

States at the bottom of the per capita rankings face deep-seated structural issues that impede progress on SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 8.

1. Mississippi: $53,061 per capita
2. Arkansas: $60,276 per capita
3. West Virginia: $60,783 per capita

The low economic output in these regions correlates with low Per Capita Personal Income (PCPI), with Mississippi ranking last in both metrics. This indicates a systemic lack of economic opportunity and challenges the goal of promoting sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth for all.

Long-Term Growth, Innovation, and Sustainable Industry (SDG 9)

Drivers of Long-Term Economic Momentum (2000–2024)

An analysis of real GDP per capita change from 2000 to 2024 reveals two primary engines of growth: intellectual capital and natural resources. This divergence highlights different pathways and challenges related to achieving sustainable industrialization under SDG 9.

• Innovation-Led Growth: States like Washington (+60%) and California (+60%) demonstrate sustained growth driven by technology and innovation ecosystems. This aligns with SDG 9’s emphasis on building resilient infrastructure and fostering innovation.
• Resource-Led Growth: North Dakota achieved a remarkable 104% increase, primarily due to a shale oil boom. While this represents significant economic growth (SDG 8), its reliance on fossil fuels and susceptibility to commodity price volatility pose risks to long-term economic and environmental sustainability (conflicting with SDG 7 – Affordable and Clean Energy).

The “Rust Belt” vs. “Sun Belt” Divide

A significant regional divergence reflects differing capacities to adapt to a post-industrial economy, a key challenge for inclusive industrialization (SDG 9).

• Rust Belt States: Regions like Michigan (30% growth) and West Virginia (34% growth) have lagged the national average, constrained by legacy infrastructure and a slow transition from traditional manufacturing.
• Sun Belt States: States such as Texas, Florida, and Arizona are attracting significant investment and manufacturing jobs. This is driven by policy choices promoting business-friendly environments, including lower taxes and energy costs, which fosters economic growth but requires careful management to ensure it is sustainable and inclusive.

Conclusion: Policy Implications for Achieving Sustainable Development

The economic landscape of the United States is characterized by a widening divergence between regions. This analysis underscores several key findings relevant to the Sustainable Development Goals:

1. Inclusive Growth Remains a Challenge (SDG 8 & 10): High GDP and productivity in certain states do not automatically ensure decent work for all or reduce inequality. High unemployment and living costs in leading states indicate that growth is not being shared equitably.
2. Innovation is Key, but Must be Managed (SDG 9): Intellectual capital hubs are driving sustainable, long-term growth. However, policy must address the associated challenges of housing affordability and labor market segmentation to create truly sustainable communities (SDG 11).
3. Policy Choices Drive Outcomes: State-level policies on taxation, regulation, and infrastructure are critical determinants of economic destiny. To achieve the SDGs, policies must be designed to foster not just growth, but resilient, inclusive, and sustainable economies that provide opportunities for all citizens.

Future economic resilience will depend on states’ ability to combine high-productivity innovation with policies that ensure low barriers to entry for workers and promote equitable, sustainable development.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth: The entire article is a deep dive into economic growth, productivity, and employment across the United States. It analyzes Gross Domestic Product (GDP), GDP per capita, and unemployment rates, which are core components of SDG 8. The text contrasts high-growth, high-productivity states with those experiencing stagnation, directly addressing the goal of promoting sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth.
• SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure: The article emphasizes the role of innovation, technology, and industrial composition in driving economic success. It highlights the divergence between states with “legacy infrastructure” and those powered by “intellectual capital,” such as California’s “Silicon Valley’s innovation engine” and Washington’s “dense technology ecosystem.” This connects directly to the goal of building resilient infrastructure and fostering innovation.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: The central theme of the article is the “profound – and often polarizing – disparities” in economic output and prosperity between different US states. It details the vast economic gap between states like California and Vermont (a “nearly 90:1 disparity in total output”) and the income inequality shown by comparing Per Capita Personal Income (PCPI) in states like Massachusetts and Mississippi. This analysis of regional economic inequality aligns with the aim of SDG 10.
• SDG 1: No Poverty: While not explicitly about poverty, the article provides critical economic context for it. The discussion of states with the lowest GDP per capita and lowest Per Capita Personal Income, such as Mississippi, points to regions facing “pervasive, deep-seated lack of both productive economic output and resident income.” These are the precise economic conditions that contribute to and perpetuate poverty, making the data relevant to SDG 1.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
   • Target 8.1: Sustain per capita economic growth in accordance with national circumstances. The article directly addresses this by providing extensive data on “Gross Domestic Product Per Capita (GDP PC)” for every state and tracking the “Real GDP Per Capita Change (2000–2024),” comparing state performance against the national average of 37%.
   • Target 8.2: Achieve higher levels of economic productivity through diversification, technological upgrading and innovation. The article contrasts states that have achieved this, like California with its “Information sector” and Washington with its “technology ecosystem,” against regions struggling with “reliance on legacy industries” and a lack of diversification, such as Wyoming’s dependence on mining and oil.
   • Target 8.5: By 2030, achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all women and men. The article discusses varying levels of employment by citing unemployment rates, noting the disparity between states with low unemployment like Montana (2.8%) and states with high unemployment like California (5.5%), indicating that high economic output does not guarantee full employment.
2. SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure
   • Target 9.2: Promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization. The article analyzes the industrial composition of states, contrasting the decline of manufacturing in the “Rust Belt” (e.g., Michigan’s 30% per capita growth) with the rise of new manufacturing jobs in the “Sun Belt,” which “grabbed nearly half (47%) of all the new manufacturing jobs created in the country” between 2021 and 2024.
   • Target 9.b: Support domestic technology development, research and innovation. The analysis champions the success of states driven by “intellectual capital” and “innovation hubs.” It notes that methodological changes to GDP calculation now recognize “research and development expenditures,” directly linking innovation to measured economic output.
3. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • Target 10.1: By 2030, progressively achieve and sustain income growth of the bottom 40 per cent of the population at a rate higher than the national average. The article provides data on Per Capita Personal Income (PCPI), which serves as a proxy for income levels. The stark difference between Mississippi’s PCPI of $52,017 and Massachusetts’s $93,927 illustrates the vast income inequality between regions.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
   • Indicator 8.1.1: Annual growth rate of real GDP per capita. The article explicitly provides this data in the section “Economic Momentum,” listing the “Real GDP Per Capita Change (2000–2024)” for various states, such as North Dakota (104%) and Washington (60%), and comparing it to the U.S. average (37%). It also provides the “Q2 2025 Real GDP Annualized Change.”
   • Indicator 8.5.2: Unemployment rate. The article directly cites unemployment rates for several states as of August 2025. For example, it mentions Montana (2.8%), Nebraska (3.0%), California (5.5%), and Nevada (5.3%), using this data to analyze labor market health.
2. SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure
   • Indicator 9.2.1: Manufacturing value added as a proportion of GDP. While not providing a direct percentage, the article implies this indicator by listing “Manufacturing” as the “Key Economic Sector” for numerous states in its main table and discussing the shift of manufacturing jobs from the “Rust Belt” to the “Sun Belt.”
   • Indicator 9.b.1: Proportion of medium and high-tech industry value added in total value added. The article’s focus on the economic dominance of states with strong “Information, Tech” (Washington) and “Professional Services” (California) sectors serves as a qualitative measure of this indicator, contrasting them with states reliant on primary sectors like mining and oil.
3. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • Indicator 10.1.1: Growth rates of household expenditure or income per capita. The article provides two key data points that serve as proxies for this indicator:
     1. Per Capita Personal Income (PCPI): The table “State Economic Productivity Comparison” lists the PCPI for every state in 2024.
     2. Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE): The article notes that PCE grew by 5.6% nationally in 2024, with Florida showing the highest growth (7.0%) and Mississippi the lowest (4.3%).

Summary of Findings

Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: nchstats.com