Would you agree with liberal democracy has failed(economically)?
Firstly, I must admit that liberal democracies have generally been the most effective at preserving civil liberties and political accountability(even if that is starting to slide).
Looking at the recent failures of America and other anglosphere countries to construct infrastructure quickly and without large cost overruns, the partisan political conflict that has become a staple of politics in liberal democracies for decades, as well as the severe housing crises in these liberal democracies, I have been more convinced that liberal democracy has failed economically.
Firstly, liberal democracies are generally unable to construct infrastructure quickly and inexpensively due to legislative gridlock. The planning and construction of infrastructure in liberal democracies involves multiple layers of bureaucracy where the government first enters lengthy negotiations with wealthy landowners on compensation and whether they can even acquire their land in the first place is never guaranteed. There are also lengthy environmental impact surveys that must be conducted. In addition, couple all this with lobbying by certain groups(such as affluent homeowners or private corporations) and the completion of infrastructure projects can be delayed for years as a result of constant revisions to the plan and large cost overruns. Then partisan division means that political parties often differ greatly on how particular infrastructure should be built or if it should even be built at all, further delaying projects as politicians get caught in a relentless cycle of bickering. And in the end politicians usually do nothing but blame the other party for such failures.
Compare this with South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and China where the state, with its vast overarching control of land and resources could simply bulldoze through acres of land without a care in the world to construct large amounts of highways, railways, factories, and public housing in order to drive ludicrous export-oriented economic growth and development. No NIMBYs or affluent landowners to stand in the way, no opposition party to be vetoed by, and no significant bureaucratic or legislative red tape to delay or cancel such projects. As a result these countries have built out large amounts of infrastructure within short period of time(helping to drive their ludicrous economic growth), with China having the longest high speed rail network in the world and with most Singaporeans living in public housing spread over more than 20 new towns. In 1967 the Gyeongbu expressway was first proposed and by 1970 it was completed.
Secondly, the housing crisis has become one of the greatest failures of both liberal democracy and neoliberal capitalism. As a result of the largely unregulated buying and selling of property which has turned housing into a luxury investment, rental and house prices have skyrocketed well beyond the income of the average consumer. In many liberal democracies there exists a chronic issue of either a shortage of housing, housing being too expensive, or both. This is further exacerbated by the fact that , because of the aforementioned problems with building infrastructure and the treatment of public housing as welfare for the impoverished, public housing projects usually fail miserably.
Meanwhile Singapore from the get go realized that providing state subsidized housing for the masses is a key instrument for social stability, and the government using its powerful land aqusition abilities built large amounts of subsidized, affordable housing that people were encouraged to own, and sold at affordable prices. The satillite towns built were also government-planned to the last detail to ensure inhabitants had easy access to food, leisure, religious and commercial spaces as well as transportation. Strict restrictions on reselling HDB flats were also imposed to prevent public housing from becoming a speculative asset on the free market to the extent that property is in liberal democracies. Such extensive state intervention in housing can only be dreamed of in liberal democracies where the emphasis on free market capitalism and property rights prevent such intervention from being acceptable to most people.
Thirdly, liberal democracies are just worse at getting anything done in general, specifically when it comes to long-term socio-economic planning and development. As a result of election cycles candidates often prioritize short-term policies with immediate results over long-term policies and initiatives with lasting effects in order to win votes, and in the case where long-term policies are implemented the opposition simply scraps them upon winning the next election. This results in a back-and-forth battle between political parties who differ greatly on their vision for the country and struggle to impose that vision on the country. As a result meaningful, long lasting reform and economic growth is often hard to come by, stagnating social and economic development.
Look at the 4 Asian tigers, they transitioned from impoverished, low-income states into developed, high-income industrial and commercial powerhouses by compressing 150 years of industrialization into only 30. This was only possible because most, if not all of this growth was done under the strong hand of the state who, unfettered by a weak and suppressed opposition, and by denying people the avenues and rights to stagnate this progress implemented sweeping , far-reaching policies in industry, infrastructure, and education that helped achieve economic growth and development throughout the 1960s, 70s, and 80s. In a liberal democracy, try suppressing wages, seizing people's land, implementing policies that others may disagree with, building in places against the wishes of others, intervening extensively in the economy, and you'll be met with massive labor strikes, press criticism, protests, legislative blocking, etc.
Not a single liberal democracy in history has ever replicated this same rapid transition from almost nothing to a high-income developed economy in less than 40 years. Botswana does not count because it is still stuck in the middle income trap, Japan does not count because it was already industrialized pre-war, and Ireland does not count because it was already partially industrialized and wasn't that far behind the rest of western Europe by the 1960s.
Sure, autocracy may have its flaws(South Korea and Taiwan were forced to liberalize because protests got out of hand as social stability was not really prioritized), but if managed by competent individuals is a more effective model for socio-economic development and change. Anglosphere politicians look up to the success stories of the 4 Asian tigers and dream of replicating their success, yet only continue to blame the other party when the government cannot get things done instead of acknowledging that the root cause of their inability to get things done is a structural failure of liberal democracy.