China is definitely an interesting high level examples of what leads to growth. Surely its quite hard to say that the China could have grown faster if only XYZ. If there is always a correlation between growth and state non-intervention, it either does not apply in every case or isn't the only (or even the the strongest) predictor of economic growth.

I have heard a reasonably coherent argument that a strong central system can be beneficial to a state that is "behind." These are less reliant on big revolutionary innovations. They have industries that get a lot of benefit from just simple capital investment. Basically, since you can see the path to a more prosperous future relatively clearly from the present, you can plan the economy more efficiently. In some cases this might be more efficient then allowing the economy to plan its own course.

Take some large country with an underdeveloped economy but no prohibitive political or social hang-ups. If you try to imagine a prosperous future for it, you can usually see some of the parts of it. Agricultural methods (assuming that you think agriculture will play a big part of that economy) will need to improve. This will over time, yield 2-3 times more crops with the same amount of land and fewer workers. You know what those methods are and you might even be able to guess at the appropriate ownership structure (micro farmers vs larger farmers with employees vs cooperatives vs corporate farms, etc.) because you have examples. The country might need a industrial/manufacturing industry. You don't really need the market to figure out what a good industrial complex looks like or what conditions are needed because you have examples.

Germany (to take a random example) is not really in that position. You won't be as accurate in your guesses.