Authoritarian vs Democratic Governments

Some analysts have argued that authoritarian governments are better able to manage the early stages of economic development. Others have insisted that democratic governments have better records of economic development. What are the arguments and the evidence on each side?
There are three underlying assumptions about an authoritarian rule advantage:
1. Poor countries do better under authoritarian governments in terms of economic development, because authoritarian systems are better able to manage and marshal the limited resources in those countries. The argument went that if a poor country became democratic, because of the pressures in a democracy to respond to the interests of the people, they would borrow too much, and spend the money in ways that did not advance development. These poor decisions would mean that development would not occur and because people would then be disappointed, they would return to a dictatorship. (Handelman, 2009 p.32)
      In the last forty-five years of actual performance, there is no evidence that poor authoritarian countries have grown any more rapidly than poor democracies. If you leave out East Asia, you see that poor democracies have grown 50 percent more rapidly, on average, during this period. The Baltic countries, Botswana, Costa Rica, Ghana, and Senegal have grown more rapidly than the Angolas, the Syrias, the Uzbekistans, and the Zimbabwes of the world. This is the case even though 25 percent of authoritarian countries don't even report their economic information.
2. Once these countries reach some middle-income level of development, they are in a better position to make a transition to democracy, and do so successfully (Handelman, 2009, p.32) Therefore, the prescription was, get yourself a benign dictator—it was never quite explained how you would make sure you had a dictator that spent the money to develop the country rather than ship it off to a Swiss bank account—wait until that produces development, which produces...