One thing to remember is that one reason the KMT undertook economic reforms on Taiwan is that the loss of the Mainland had led it to re-evaluate its policies. If it hadn't lost the mainland, the temptation to continue doing things in the same old way would be considerable..
Obviously, a KMT-China will depend heavily on how it won the civil war.
OTL, KTM-Taiwan did many reforms that the KMT had envisioned for China, not so much simply because of a re-evaluation of policy, but because the cliques in China effectively blocked things like land reform. A major reason for land reform in Taiwan was simply that the KMT was in control of Taiwan. (of course, this sentence is only true, if one equates the KMT in China with what ended up in Taiwan).
Also, KMT-Taiwan was hardly a model government. Highly militaristic with a wasteful 5+% GDP on the army, a leader whose vision of grandeur literally is to conquer China and a somewhat corrupt system (KMT is known as "the richest party in Asia" controlling numerous companies worth est. USDbn 40). And yet, despite this KMT-Taiwan moved from a Congo/Zaire level of wealth in the 1950s to a Japan/Western EU-level now.
But still, in order for a victorious KMT or another victorious clique for that matter to accelerate atl-China's growth, all they literally need to do is to avoid batshit crazy Mao-stuff, like "hey, let's kill all the birds, that will have no effect on the ecosystem" or "hey, let's empty all the universities and send out graduates to work as field hands, that will improve overall progress and happiness" (知識青年), or "hey, Gulags are a great idea, let's lock up 50 million dissents".