Answer: This might not be what you were looking for but this website gives you 4 examples and there's a video to watch.
https://nmliving.com/2016/08/21/legendary-new-mexico-technology/
In capitalist countries (and those transitioning to capitalism), overt or direct government control of the economy is avoided. Instead, the government seeks to provide the infrastructure and security/stability needed in order for business interests to flourish and the economy to grow.
Direct government control of the economy was the pattern of "mercantilism," which was dominant prior to the rise of capitalism. According to Adam Smith, one of the founding theorists of capitalism, mercantilism was bad because the government tried to regulate and control commerce too much. Smith, along with French economic theorists known "physiocrats" (wanting to let "nature rule"), advocated a "laissez-faire" approach to commerce and industry, letting businesses run themselves in competition in a free market.
However, for that free market to flourish, governments will do their part by providing infrastructure -- roads, ports, etc. Governments also will ensure the stability and security needed for businesses to operate safely and consistently. So governments will enact laws affirming rights and fairness in business contracts and enforce those laws, and also provide national security within their lands so that economic growth can flourish due to peaceful circumstances. (Warfare causes great disruption to economies.)
The Peloponnesian War<span> reshaped the </span>Ancient Greek<span> world. On the level of international relations, Athens, the strongest city-state in </span>Greece<span> prior to the </span>war's<span>beginning, was reduced to a state of near-complete subjection, while Sparta was established as the leading power of </span>Greece<span>.</span>
The new Constitution was an improvement on the Articles of Confederation by providing a solid, universal government for the entire country. Improvements that the Constitution made allowed the Federalists to win out over the anti-Federalists because the reality of having a structured Federal government was essential to the success of the new country. In the Articles of Confederation, there existed a loose confederation of states. Only one vote was allowed for each state in Congress (one house) and a 2/3 vote was required to pass all important measures. The laws were executed by a committee of Congress, and more importantly, commerce and the power to levy taxes was under the control of Congress. The lack of federal courts and unanimity of all the states was required to amend. Under the Constitution, there was a system of checks and balances with a firm and strong central government. Congress was separated into two houses, the Senate and the House. Only a simple majority was required to pass laws. Composed of the dominate legislative branch, combined with the executive and judicial branches made the new Constitution a more realistic structure for government.
<span>Debate between the Federalists and the anti-Federalists centered on the new Constitution and its ratification. Those who favored the Constitution (Federalists including the founding fathers), were the more respectable people, settled down in the civilized urban areas of town. Conversely, the anti-Federalists were a motley crowd of illiterates who still believed in the revolutionary idea. They were under the impression that the upper crust of society was going to put one over on them and establish a situation not dissimilar from the colonial days. Their main argument was that the sovereignty of the states was at stake with the Constitution. Being trapped again was not a popular option. Hot debate would wage on forcing the decision onto the people, forcing them to make the decision of changing their revolutionary standards to those conducive of a successful nation.</span>
