For years my colleagues and I have charted the rise and fall of Michigan’s economic fortunes using a number of different metrics. We did so because we care deeply about the well-being of Michigan citizens — and by extension — the whole Great Lake State.

We have looked at changes in state gross domestic product (the value of all goods and services produced within our borders), per capita personal income and interstate migration and population growth to name just three. We also employ indexes produced by other think tanks and scholars that rely on many more variables. One of those indexes was just updated and released last week. Our state’s rating was middling and could be improved with tax cuts.

The American Legislative Exchange Council produces a report each year called, “Rich States, Poor States: ALEC-Laffer Competitiveness Index.” This index measures 15 policy variables, from top marginal tax rates to public employees per 10,000 citizens and whether a state maintains a right-to-work law. States that appear higher in the rankings tend to do better economically than those who finish in the bottom tier.

The annually updated report uses the data to rank states on their economic outlook. In the 2016 edition, which contains data through 2014, Michigan ranked 22nd, up slightly from 24th. That’s a better but still middling performance. Utah finished first in the index — its outlook is brightest — and New York finished last.

Michigan’s middle-of-the-pack performance is not a big surprise. In the last year or two, there have been no big policy changes in Lansing that would necessitate a big move upward. Also, other indexes and rankings we have tracked have also placed Michigan in the great average of American states. The Tax Foundation of Washington D.C. ranks Michigan’s state and local tax burden 25th among 50 through 2012. Similarly, in the index “Economic Freedom of North America,” Michigan ranks 27th among 50 states through 2013.

There is much that could be done to raise our ranking in the ALEC index (among others) going forward. A reduction in taxes — or perhaps the outright elimination — of the state’s corporate or personal income tax is just one example.

Great strides have been made in recent years to reform Michigan’s fiscal policy and regulatory landscape, but much more can and should be done.

Ridesharing companies face a number of difficulties in Michigan. Municipalities regulate taxis and the state regulates limousines, but Uber and Lyft don’t fall into either category. The legal gray area they occupy has made it difficult for drivers to operate in places like Ann Arbor, as described in a recent article.

By contrast, Uber received a warm welcome from law enforcement in Grand Rapids. Babacar, a driver there, said the police love Uber. “Basically, around two in the morning, we clean the city,” he says. “We take everybody home. I think that’s the reason the police love us, love the Uber drivers. We help them. We make their jobs very easy.”

Indeed, while the phenomenon requires further study, Uber has found that when ridesharing companies can freely operate in a city, drunk driving arrests drop by over 10 percent. One driver said he regularly drives people with a DUI on their record, adding that some will even bring Uber receipts to court to prove they’re being more responsible and making better decisions.

But ridesharing doesn’t just make the roads safer, it also provides large numbers of flexible jobs for those in need of extra income or a way to tide them over between jobs. When it is possible to begin working without obtaining a costly new license or starting a taxi company, ridesharing drivers can start work almost immediately, on their own terms — choosing their hours and where they want to work.

Ridesharing also has the potential to take cars off the road, cutting down on road congestion and pollution. In 2015, Uber launched a new service in New York City that matched up people making similar commutes to save them money and remove cars from rush hour traffic.

Michigan might be a different ballgame, but ridesharing has had an impact here, too. Tim, a driver in Ann Arbor, tells of a regular customer who sold her car after realizing that Uber would be a cheaper way to get to work: “It’s $100 a month, or $200 a month. But prior to that, they were paying the car payment, insurance and gas.”

Some believe that drivers for Uber and Lyft should be regulated like taxi drivers, and that the lack of a regulatory structure gives ridesharing an unfair advantage. “I think even the taxi industry is way over-regulated,” said Kevin, a driver from Flint, adding that the popularity of services like Lyft and Uber should “show legislators that people want an alternative.”

“A lot of people I give rides to never used a taxi before,” Kevin said. “They use this now because it’s so convenient and so easy.”

Rebecca, who drives in Grand Rapids, concurs. “The amount of young people I pick up amazes me,” she said. “I see that they’re getting rides and they’re being responsible, and it’s so inexpensive for them, whereas taxis are inconvenient, you have to sit around and wait for who knows how long and they’re very expensive.”

Ridesharing companies currently operate in metro Detroit, Ann Arbor, Lansing, East Lansing, Flint, Kalamazoo and Grand Rapids, but cannot expand services further until the Legislature passes an overarching framework for them to follow. The House passed a package of bills that would exempt ridesharing drivers from needing a special license and set parameters for insurance and how these companies provide their services. It sits in the Senate Regulatory Reforms Committee.

Learn more at mackinac.org/ridesharing.