"Better off" is too vague a criterion because it suggests some comparison with a counter-factual hypothetical. Instead, I think it's important to observe that the modern organs of state, rule of law, etc., were developed under (pre-constitutional) monarchs and dictators in most western European countries. For example in Germany, much of the bureaucracy was developed by the Prussians and the court system was developed under the Kaiser. Germany's 1949 Basic Law did not create a state from scratch, but instead largely subjected pre-existing institutions to democratic rule.
Yeah, Frederick the Great is the closest thing I can think of to a European analogue to Lee Kwan Yew. Maybe Napoleon to a lesser extent.
Franco, at least in the sense of GDP per capita indicators and escaping WW2.
The UK for one. By the time it became a democracy, it was already stable, peaceful and the wealthiest country per capita that had ever existed.
It was a narrow miss. There was a time the crown wanted everyone farming cotton, but entrepreneurs pitched arbitrage instead.
Do you mean raising sheep for wool? The UK has never grown a significant amount of cotton.
> Which european dictatorship left their country better off?
If monarchs count as dictators, and monarchic states as dictatorship, then almost all economic progress in Europe upto the 1840s