Central planning and authoritarianism can be very effective at changing the course of an organization, government, or country; once the choice is made.
What they don't always do well is make the choice to change when conditions change. There's also usually a limited bandwidth for deciding and forcing change, so you tend to end up without economic diversity and without great results in areas outside of policy.
A democratic/distributed decision making process tends towards slower changes and less alignment, but more diversity.
If you decide to be the world's production line, economic diversity may be less important. But having diversity is usually a good thing when economic tides change.
Central planning is very good for pulling a country out of an a poorly developed state into a highly developed state. The USSR experience this under Stalin (setting aside that he was a mass murderer) which created an industrial power. Even in the US, during WW2 the industry was centrally planned and that pulled the US out of the Great Depression.
However, central planning as proven to be bad once you reach a developed state. Lots of reasons for this which would be too long to get into here, but has a lot to do with people willing to follow a sacrifice when there is a crisis or the country is working together to get itself out of a bad situation.
What they don't always do well is make the choice to change when conditions change. There's also usually a limited bandwidth for deciding and forcing change, so you tend to end up without economic diversity and without great results in areas outside of policy.
A democratic/distributed decision making process tends towards slower changes and less alignment, but more diversity.
If you decide to be the world's production line, economic diversity may be less important. But having diversity is usually a good thing when economic tides change.