This article originally appeared in the Detroit News February 19 2025.

It’s fun to look ahead to the next big thing. On Feb. 9, the Philadelphia Eagles beat the Kansas City Chiefs in Super Bowl LIX. The next day, sportsbooks had odds on who would win next year’s showdown. Likewise, with elections: Once the votes are counted it’s not long before people speculate about the next political cycle.

The 2026 cycle will be significant for Michigan. As others have noted, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson and Attorney General Dana Nessel all face term limits, so those offices will be open. Both chambers of the Michigan Legislature will be up for grabs. Voters will select two justices for the Michigan Supreme Court. Michigan will have another open U.S. Senate race. On top of all that, voters will be asked whether we should rewrite the state constitution.

Michigan voters have shown that they are persuaded by ideas and not merely party labels. How else do you explain a state that in 2024 voted for Donald Trump for president, put Democrat Elissa Slotkin into an open U.S. Senate seat and returned the state House to Republicans? All this after giving Democrats a total sweep in 2022. The candidates matter, but their ideas matter more.

Michigan’s policy decisions these next few years will determine the state’s long-term competitiveness. What ideas should policymakers prioritize?

Justin Callais, Ph.D., chief economist at the Archbridge Institute, says the concept of social mobility offers a good roadmap. Social mobility explains how a person’s socio-economic standing changes over a lifetime. Are you better off than your grandparents? Will your children have more opportunity than you did?

Callais says social mobility comes down to whether someone can achieve “the good life.” In a new study published by the Archbridge Institute and the Mackinac Center, Callais examines how Michigan’s social mobility ranks among all 50 states. Unfortunately, Michigan ranks 30th, putting it in the bottom half of the country.

Callais breaks Michigan’s social mobility score into four categories:

• “Entrepreneurship and growth” — the ease of getting a job or starting a business.

• “Education and skills development” — the quality of education and how easy it is for families to access good schools. This pillar also examines family stability and parental engagement.

• “Institutions and rule of law” — whether the state’s criminal justice system is fair or predatory and how people perceive corruption in the state.

• “Social capital” — how individuals help each other through community engagement, giving or volunteering.

Among our neighboring states, Michigan scores above Ohio (32nd) and Illinois (40th) but below Wisconsin (14th) and Indiana (21st).

Government policy and social conditions can encourage or impede a person’s ability to live the good life, so policymakers should take note.

Michigan scores well on business regulations and the fines and fees that local governments collect. Our state universities are strong, and parental engagement ranks higher than in our four neighboring states.

But Michigan has “plenty of room to improve,” writes Callais. Corporate taxes and real estate taxes stifle economic activity. Business dynamism — new startups, number of businesses, patents — is below the national average. Michigan’s K-12 education system is woeful, ranking in the bottom 20 nationally. Michigan’s social capital is lower than in our four neighboring states, whether you measure community event attendance, charitable donations or the number of nonprofits. Population growth is important, but Michigan ranks in the bottom 10 among all states.

Callais recommends that policymakers focus on education and business dynamism. This, he says, requires “a significant departure from current state policies.”

A brighter future for Michigan is possible. Let’s prioritize policies that empower individuals to live the good life.

Permission to reprint this blog post in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the author (or authors) and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy are properly cited.