This is a difficult topic because there hasn't been enough time passed to decide a definitive answer. Where one stands on the issue is likely attributed to one's political views. As I'm sure you know, Pinochet solicited the help of economist Milton Friedman and his "Chicago Boys" to revamp the Chilean economy. Put at its very simplest, Chile had previously freely elected Salvador Allende, a self-proclaimed Marxist, as president in 1970. Allende's Socialist platform included nationalizing large-scale industries, particularly copper mining. In addition to land reform, nationalization was part of several programs to redistribute wealth and improve the socio-economic conditions of poor Chilean citizens. These policies did provide aid for several societal issues, such as an increase in educational enrollment, increases in state expenditure in health, and decreases in malnutrition. Unfortunately it also created devastating inflation. Put at it's absolute simplest, anti-communist sentiments combined with middle-class dissatisfaction and military action resulted in a coup that installed Pinochet's US-backed military regime in 1973.

This is the reality that Pinochet, Friedman and the Chicago Boys entered into with their policies. Pinochet (and his international backers) pretty much opposed everything that Marxist Allende had put in place. This is a post about the economy so I won't even get into Operation Condor (but gosh it's exceedingly dark). Pinochet, wanting to resurrect the economy that had fallen during Allende's Socialist policies asked for the help of renowned Libertarian economic theorists. Milton Friedman and his disciples advocated deregulation, privatization and free market policies. Following these objectives, the Chicago Boys went about implementing economic reforms informed by economic liberalism. These neoliberal policies created what is referred to as "The Chilean Miracle," painting Chile's economic experiment as a resounding success that reinvigorated the economy and undid many of the devastating effects of Allende's Popular Unity coalition.

Several historians have nonetheless made clear the the Chilean working class is no better off from this Neoliberal "Experiment." "Victims of the Chilean Miracle" is an edited volume by many leading scholars that asserts that any attempt at unionization was swiftly and painfully denied after 1973. Even after the restoration of democracy in 1988, historians argue that the Chilean government have not been able to restore the rightful living conditions of the Chilean working class. To me, Chile is a particularly terrifying example of going along with the status quo. Even after the coup, many middle-class Chileans went along with Pinochet because they were not personally disadvantaged by the new regime's policies.

Does having a great economy for investment supersede having many of your citizens living in poverty? This is the same question that the US faces. Only time will tell if Pinochet's policies were beneficial to the majority of Chileans. Historians tend to argue "No" but I'm sure other's will argue the opposite.