Also, titans of economy should not be given the reins of running the country, no matter how qualified they might be. They already have a lot of power. In poorer countries, political ascendants are shot dead. In the US, you have attack ads, smear campaigns etc.
Frankly with the level which facts and reason have been shown to be utterly useless in the political arena, there's no way we'll avoid this fate unless the 1% themselves come to the conclusion that their lobbying and consolidation of power will ultimately destroy the country. However I'm not holding my breath for this to happen since game theory and Upton Sinclair inform us that's not how human interest generally works.
During the booming 70s-90s, just about all high level government officials were appointed by the British. In addition, most of the upper class were British as well.
Local Hongkongers were often second class citizens.
Likewise, when Singapore, Korea, and Taiwan were booming, they were essentially dictatorships.
Heck, compare South Africa and Zimbabwe during the apartheid era to now.
Chauvinists don't like to admit it but they are at least partly responsible for the ROC and ROK's success too.
> Heck, compare South Africa and Zimbabwe during the apartheid era to now.
What happened a shame but the whites in those country are now sleeping in the bed they made.
The current leader, Abe Shinzo, is actively working on dismantling what little semblance of democracy remains, including silencing the press and passing laws to lock up anyone who "plans to protest" against his government.
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/09/world/cia-spent-millions-t...
https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/05/27/the-silencing-of-japans...
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/03/21/national/crime-l...
I think economic success has more to do with access to American markets, and being a 'strategic partner' in cold war geo-political games, then it did with your form of government.
They give the example of Venice which had (for the time) relatively inclusive systems, allowing a a middle class to rise and generate wealth for the city. This new elite started to limit political inclusiveness to protect their wealth. This tipped the scale back to extractive systems. By the 1500s Venice was in decline.
This example makes me wonder if we're headed that way. In Hong Kong -- but also e.g. in the US -- it seems there's a class of mega rich that are moving more and more into rent seeking behavior and greater income inequality. If the book's theory is right this will lead to political systems to become less inclusive over time, which will eventually lead to economic decline.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Nations_Fail [2] http://www.economist.com/node/21549911