Hawaii
West
State Power #41/51Per-capita #36
State Power
22.9
of 100 · #41
SPI
22.9
SCC
30.6
SDI
31.4
Pillar profile
Talent34.8
Capital17.1
Research23.1
Infrastructure46.6
Agentic31.4
Nearest peers (per-capita)
- Vermont30.5
- Kansas32.7
- New Mexico33.5
- South Carolina27.6
- Iowa34.2
Report · generated from Hawaii's indicators
Hawaii, standing in full
Hawaii is the #41 state by economic size ($95bn GSP) and ranks #41/51 on absolute State Power and #36/51 on per-capita intensity. No pillar stands out as a clear strength; the binding concern is research.
Economic & scale context
GDP
$95bn
#41 of 51
GDP / capita
$66k
Population
1.4M
AI investment
$1.0bn
#40 of 51
Notable AI orgs
8
Index & pillar read
| Index / pillar | Value | Standing | What a high vs low value means, and where Hawaii sits |
|---|---|---|---|
| SPI State Power | 22.9 | Developing · #41/51 | Low here, limited absolute weight, a smaller node leaning on capacity built in larger states. ▲ high: a heavyweight that anchors national AI capacity and pulls in capital and talent · ▼ low: limited absolute weight, a smaller node leaning on capacity built in larger states |
| SCC State Coefficient | 30.6 | Developing · #36/51 | Low here, thin intensity per resident, capability is sparse relative to population. ▲ high: deep capability per resident, a concentrated, high-intensity AI economy · ▼ low: thin intensity per resident, capability is sparse relative to population |
| SDI State Agentic | 31.4 | Developing · #37/51 | Low here, agentic deployment is shallow, the local agent lever is under-used. ▲ high: agents are widely deployed locally, a near-term productivity multiplier · ▼ low: agentic deployment is shallow, the local agent lever is under-used |
| Talent Talent | 34.8 | Moderate · #28/51 | Mid-pack. High would mean a deep talent pool, the scarcest input to building AI; low would mean a shallow talent base that constrains how much can be built locally. ▲ high: a deep talent pool, the scarcest input to building AI · ▼ low: a shallow talent base that constrains how much can be built locally |
| Capital Capital | 17.1 | Developing · #38/51 | Low here, thin investment, good ideas struggle to scale locally. ▲ high: abundant capital flowing into building cognitive infrastructure · ▼ low: thin investment, good ideas struggle to scale locally |
| Research Research | 23.1 | Developing · #38/51 | Low here, a weak research base, fewer home-grown breakthroughs and spinouts. ▲ high: a strong research base feeding a pipeline of ideas and people · ▼ low: a weak research base, fewer home-grown breakthroughs and spinouts |
| Infrastructure Infrastructure | 46.6 | Moderate · #33/51 | Mid-pack. High would mean the physical and digital rails to run AI at scale are in place; low would mean infrastructure gaps cap how much AI can actually be run locally. ▲ high: the physical and digital rails to run AI at scale are in place · ▼ low: infrastructure gaps cap how much AI can actually be run locally |
| Agentic Agentic | 31.4 | Developing · #37/51 | Low here, little agentic deployment, the near-term lever is unused. ▲ high: agents are actively deployed, an early-mover productivity edge · ▼ low: little agentic deployment, the near-term lever is unused |
Strengths to build on
- No pillar stands out as a clear strength yet.
Risk factors
- Binding weakness, Research 23.1 (#38/51, Developing): a weak research base, fewer home-grown breakthroughs and spinouts.
▲
State values are curated v1 estimates on a consistent scale, not yet measured sub-national data.