I think that some countries do smashingly with little, if any, government intervention; South Korea, Singapore, even Australia and New Zealand aren't shabby in that regard either.
So while I think the main thrust of the semantics is a little off, I do understand what you're feeling. And if I may be so bold: may I offer up a simile to try and find the words you are looking for?
In essence, it boils down to the pure, permanent, manifestation of property rights. That what is mine, is mine, and what is yours is yours. In Sub-Saharan Africa there is no real property rights; just whomever happens to have received the largest relief aid the past month, the most guns, whatever it is that they get that enables them to kick someone off their land; so they can acquire it.
In Soviet Russia, Red China and ect... The problem is basically the same; a bad of criminals runs around kicking people off their land because they have the most money, the biggest guns or whatever.
It is country's that have the permanence of property, without the malady of government support; is where the highest benefits are.
Sorry, you haven't defined little down far enough. For instance in most though scarcely all of Subsaharan Africa 'little' means a thug and his cadre of toadies and flunkies, who see their job as, rather than keeping the peace, collecting protection money from the locals and robbing businessmen themselves and doing nothing to protect said business from the local criminal element. The result in a very short time is that the economy becomes largely one of barter and poverty because acquiring wealth draws the attention of the local thugocracy which is bad not only for your health but that of your family as well.
By the way interestingly enough this is almost certainly the point at which the modern anarcho, communists end up if they get a facsimile of their way. Historically, both nature and politics abhor vacuums and tend to react with some violence to their presence.