When it comes to hydrocarbons almost all state owned space agencies use kerosene in combination with LOX in bi-propellant rockets. But many hydrocarbons (such as methane, ethane, propane, ethylene, propylene, etc.) give a higher specific impulse and are cheaper than kerosene. All of them were always readily available on the market, and largely used in industry and households. Also for many of them density impulse could be matched with Kerolox if fuels are pre-chilled. Many private space companies therefore run away from kerosene at some period of development (SpaceX is switching kerosene with methane), while others avoid it from the very beginning (Blue Origin - methane, Vector space - propylene, Orbex space - propane etc.).
Boris Katorgin, famous founder of RD-180 engine proposed in his works to switch kerosene with something better. For brief period of time USSR used syntin, but soon abandoned it. Boris even found a hydrocarbon which is cheap to produce and wouldn't require any modifications to rocket or to engine with significant improvement in performance, but without success in promoting it further.
But there is catch with kerosene, in state of emergency kerosene could power virtually all military vehicles from trucks, tanks, helicopters and of course planes. Seems to me that rockets were mandatory to be added to this list, even if they were meant for civilian use. Considering this is it possible that military interests prevailed over civilian in all state owned space agencies around the world and we have a lag in space exploration because of it?