> I don't think "authoritarian" is a meaningful category. If it just
> means "place in which decision-making is generally done from above,"
> that's every country 95% of the time. If it means "place in which
> decision-making is generally done from above, but more than in the
> United States" (which is what it usually really means," then, what,
> there is no difference between Nazi Germany, China, North Korea,
> Viet-Nam, and Cuba?
"Authoritarian", or something like it, is a meaningful category because the structure of power can have a significant impact. Even if it's the elites that make the decisions, *how* that is done makes a huge difference.
One the one hand we can imagine a system in which dissenting (elite) opinions are permitted, and where there is a standardized generally accepted method for changing who (among the elites) is in charge. On the other hand we can imagine a system where those in charge do not tolerate any dissenting opinions or criticisms; alternate power groups are treated with suspicion or suppressed, and authority tends to only come from whichever group is currently in power. These are two extreme endpoints on a spectrum of systems, of course.
Given a well run bureaucracy, the latter system will be more effective in the short run; less time is spent debating, there are less restrictions on the decision makers.
The former system will be more effective in the long run, since it can deal better with changing circumstances that invalidate the assumptions of the current rulers, and recover better from any mistakes they make. This is because they have generally accepted methods of changing policies that do not involve breaking the system or violence within the elites.