Your examples miss that autocracy is a form of government, not a single person ruling. An autocrat can be toppled and a new one take his place, the regime didn'

Your examples miss that autocracy is a form of government, not a single person ruling. An autocrat can be toppled and a new one take his place, the regime didn't change at all, only the individual at the top did. An autocracy in which the autocrats turnover (not within the same family) is similar to a democracy will be as economically healthy as that democracy. Matter of fact I'd say healthier because it takes balls and risktaking at the societal level to topple an autocrat every 3 or 4 years, it's the same risk-taking which would produce exceptional results in entrepreneurship and trade. Creative destruction can't be limited to trade and entrepreneurship. It's either everywhere in the system or nowhere at all. Nothing says more 'creative destruction' than toppling an autocrat every 3 or 4 years, only to rally once again behind the new strongman which will be toppled himself in 3 or 4 years time