I don't see the usefulness of a 2-by-2 categorization where 1 of the axes is "successful vs. unsuccessful". No one intentionally puts themselves in the "Unsuccessful" half. That might still be worthwhile if you can show that one of the squares is much more rare or frequent than the others, but your examples seem to show the opposite. All your current classification gives to the reader is the impression that centralized-decentralized makes no difference to success (ideally you'd have a second axis that separates the successful ones from the unsuccessful ones but is actually actionable).
"Governments are fragile because they’re too big to effectively plan resources. Coordination mechanisms in markets like price signals don’t work." But, what about Indonesia, Rusia and Canada?
I don't see the usefulness of a 2-by-2 categorization where 1 of the axes is "successful vs. unsuccessful". No one intentionally puts themselves in the "Unsuccessful" half. That might still be worthwhile if you can show that one of the squares is much more rare or frequent than the others, but your examples seem to show the opposite. All your current classification gives to the reader is the impression that centralized-decentralized makes no difference to success (ideally you'd have a second axis that separates the successful ones from the unsuccessful ones but is actually actionable).
"Governments are fragile because they’re too big to effectively plan resources. Coordination mechanisms in markets like price signals don’t work." But, what about Indonesia, Rusia and Canada?