Image Source
"Is it possible for complete governmental control of an industry to increase the quality of goods produced?" 
Imagining a landscape where the economy is not driven by competition or consumerism, but rather the hand of the central government is a task I find rather difficult, as I have not been outside of the US ever... much less to a country where such economic policy is practiced. I found this question intriguing as it is questioning whether there is a substitute for market forces in a governmental fashion. If the government were to become the dominant force in an economy, I believe that it would be exactly that: a force. Production of goods would be mandated, standardized, and individual innovation would be stifled as would competition. The benefits of such a structure to this industry hierarchy include efficiency and production quantity. In American history, the closest thing to such a situation is wartime production of military items... the nation was able to produce unseen economic growth during World War II as the government and industry partnered to manufacture clothing, vehicles, weapons, and supplies for the troops overseas. During World War II, the United States saw tremendous economic growth because of such production overseen by the government... but there was still a cost to it all, as other sectors of the economy began to collapse. So, there is evidence to support government control cascading production and enhancing the quantity of certain goods produced.
Would an economy run by the government lead to better quality goods though? I would argue likely not, as it would reduce competition between industries anticipating the consumers wants and needs. Complete government control would imply control of the options for the consumer, thus they are only able to take what is given, deprived of a choice -- deprived of innovation. Furthermore, prices and wages would also be standardized under such a system decreasing some of the other marketforces that we see at work in our society.
