With regards to bringing about industrial revolution in the first place, I think it would be helpful to consider precisely what caused Industrial Revolution in Europe in the first place. There are a number of precise historical circumstances which would generally be agreed to be beneficial towards the development of industry.
Before I go any further, I should mention that receding size and prosperity is largely irrelevant; if anything, the primary "early industrializers" in Europe, England and Belgium, were relative economic backwaters. In addition, while there is some variation between the standard of living in pre-industrial economies, by and large, they tend to be similar in that agriculture is for subsistence, labor-intensive, not very productive, and most people are poor as shit. Landed interests in this sort of economy have very little incentive to industrialize, since very early industry tends to be less profitable than agriculture, but does compete with agriculture for labor. Similarly, artisanal interests, ie, medieval European guilds, but basically traditional labor-intensive secondary good producers, also tend to be hostile towards industrial endeavors because they compete against these interests, and typically operate outside of the traditional established structures of production. The pre-existing economic structure, in other words, is built to be fairly hostile towards the development of industry without some kind of radical change, as follows.
Firstly, you need to "marketize" society, that is to say, to establish sizable markets (or in other words, capitalism) to encourage people to find ways to produce goods industrially for profit in the first place, typically through expansion of trade. As I will continue to describe more later in this post, industrial development where it existed largely came into being because someone saw a profit in industrial development. Thus, without having developed market economies to a point where there is considerable "extra profit," industrial development will likely not come into being. This is, essentially, a pre-requisite to the development of merchant classes and large-scale trade networks.
Secondly, you need to create conditions which will support the accumulation of industrial capital as a substitute for production relative to traditional labor-intensive methods. In most pre-industrial societies, there have often been significant stigmas against both; Confucian culture for example stigmatized merchant classes as being social parasites. However, it is probable that given time, extremely wealthy merchant classes will develop anyhow, as did happen in East Asia by the 1700s and 1800s, which were greatly looked down upon by polite society, but nevertheless thrived and by this time had developed very large and extensive trade networks. In both East Asia and most of Europe, merchants' statuses tended to be fairly precarious, and merchants could easily go from great wealth to poverty on the whims of local rulers. Yet, it's been noted, however, that in early industrializing countries, that merchant classes tended to have somewhat greater protections, often when the operation of these merchants was seen as being in the national interest (ie, English and Dutch East Indies merchants). The development of legal protections and support for these aforementioned merchants, in contrast to suspicion, probably had a great hand in the merchant classes' role in contributing to industrialization in those countries. Basically, what I'm saying here is that it's not enough to develop large trade-based market economies, but a degree of state protection and support for these merchants, and especially for their property, is also a pre-requisite for the development of industry.
The second factor I mentioned, the start of a trend of capital accumulation, is different enough that I broke the paragraph here, but is closely related to the above paragraph. Obviously, a country cannot start accumulating industrial capital until it has acquired the relevant technology, which in the English example, is the famous steam engine (and spinning jenny), which are cited as having reduced costs enough so that profits could be turned on nascent industry. While both contributed greatly towards industrial development, these two specific inventions are certainly not the be-all and end-all of industrial development. After all, the invention of labor-saving technology is not really so much a "miracle once very twenty years process" which occurs periodically and immediately cuts production times in half so much as a continual process of gradual improvement punctuated by these occasional miracle inventions. Of course, you do need to reach a minimal level of technological development before you can really start considering this (basically whenever you start developing really mechanized forms of production like blast furnaces or whatever), but the point is more that you need to develop a technology which allows you to save labor to a point where things start becoming profitable and then have a would-be industrialist run with it. This is where the factors in the two preceding paragraphs come into play more, the state sanction and protection of industrialists and the existence of major markets and trade networks for these industrialists to sell goods on (and also for industrialists to consider that there exists a need to be fulfilled in the first place that traditional modes of production won't fill).
In addition, it's also obvious that none of this can happen unless you already have at least some amount of surplus labor who will be willing to work in the new industrial manufactories manufacturing goods. You also, however, need to pull these workers off their traditional industries, usually rural agriculture, move them into cities, and put them to work in the factories. As described in the above, we've thus outlined certain requirements that are thus necessary, most of which are associated with rapid urbanization and the development of competitive urban wages. This is a process which tends to occur naturally, as a result of gradual increases in agricultural productivity, on top of changing social factors. Europe probably did receive a considerable boost in this regard, as the massive social upheaval caused by the Black Death caused a very significant long-term upward boost to base wages in most of Europe (but especially in urban centers). While initially leading to population decline (obviously), following population recovery, these higher wages nevertheless stuck, with the result that urbanization now continues apace, but with increased draws to urban centers, a draw which can be taken advantage with by industry.
Finally, in order to get all this going, you really need to have a system in place which allows people to be able to get this all started in the first place; by which I mean, access to funding with which to create or purchase capital and develop industry. In the historical case, this funding was accumulated through the development of nascent financial sectors which allowed people to accumulate large amounts of funds quickly for major economic projects (ie, trading expeditions, loans, banking, etc.). This typically goes hand in hand with the development of the major trade networks and wealthy merchant classes, but again, for this to really stay in place long enough for industry begins to develop (in the cases of the early industrializers, these financial systems had already typically existed for hundreds of years before industrialization really took off). This was, for the record, something which did already exist to varying points in most partially economically developed countries by the 1600s-1700s, but early industrializers were most notable for having developed systems which encouraged the state protection and sanction of these sectors (ie, out of perceived national interest, or out of the development of ideology which supports these practices). Ensuring access to financial backing thus was necessary in order to industrialize.
And there's one more thing which I think I should mention, which is that while I describe landed and artisanal interests as standing in the way of industrial development, you can't really have industrial unless those have already developed. The reason for this is that landed interests only develop when agriculture has developed to a point where to some degree, it is operating not merely for subsistence but also for profit, which means agricultural production has reached a minimum efficiency such that urbanization can start coming into force. This leads towards the creation of artisanal classes, who actually produce goods which later will be produced by industry, and who will generate the technology and markets necessary for industrial markets to develop in the first place. Then, merchant classes, as they develop large-scale trade networks, create the very large markets necessary for industrial levels of production to be sustained in the first place, while also taking advantage of the creation of surplus amounts of labor who will actually do the labor in this new industrial production. Basically, none of these classes (except maybe merchants; whom I probably have mentioned the most so far, probably because, I think, they are the most likely to be the ones who 'get the ball rolling' wrt industry) alone would see the benefit of industrialization, but you cannot have it unless they all already exist.
In essence, you need production to reach a stage where it becomes profitable to industrialize this mechanism while would-be industrialists have the freedom to operate outside of guild-type restrictions (be they guilds or state monopolies or whatever), which also amounts to giving them state sanction and support (and protection) against current entrenched interests (both artisanal and landed), while still getting the benefits from the system which creates those interests, at a time when there also is technology lying around which can be put to use in industry in the first place, while there also are extensive trade networks for industrialists to sell the goods they produce in the first place, and (this is where the merchants come in) also ensure that the industrialists have access to both the funding they require to start accumulating capital in the first place and the surplus labor necessary to work in the new factories created by this accumulated capital at wages which can compete with traditional agricultural wages. It's very easy to get all these factors in one place, but hard to get the ball rolling, so to speak, because while most moderately powerful countries have had a majority of these factors in place in their countries by the 1600s and 1700s, actually taking advantage of them required in much greater part a "perfect storm" that put all these factors together in one place at the same time, in time for industrial manufactories to develop and become major factors.
Now, specifically with regards to East Asia:
In East Asia (in the cases I'm most familiar with, China and Japan), there were highly developed trade networks, large merchant classes, technology that could be industrialized, nascent financial sectors, the development of large urban centers (in fact, in the 18th century, Tokyo was actually the largest city in the world), but nevertheless, China and Japan did not industrialize until very late. This is where the 'perfect storm' factor which I described earlier comes into play; most countries, in both Europe and Asia, had periods where they were relatively behind technologically, or relatively ahead, some dominated in certain areas such as urbanization rate for a time, but lagged in others, all had merchant classes and advanced trade networks; owing to political factors, the necessity of having wealthy merchants around (I suppose I needn't tell you why cash-starved rulers would want wealthy social parasites around...) inevitably overcame social stigmas against merchants (which was the case even in China and Japan, Confucian social norms notwithstanding), though there were certain countries which managed to enact protections for the new propertied classes permanently, and ultimately did best in industrialization speed, but without having all these factors at certain minimum levels for a minimum requisite period of time, industry will not have the 'basic optimal conditions' necessary to come into being. However, once the ball does get rolling for industry, then, so long as the profits remain, the system becomes self-sustaining long enough for industrialization to really take off.
All of this only really applies, mind, towards "getting the ball rolling" in the first place. The factors which lead to the development of the "first" Industrial Revolution are very different from those which take place in other countries in the more distant future. The "first" Industrial Revolution is, as I described above, a product of multiple inter-related social and historical factors coming together long enough for a system to develop and sustain itself (industrial capitalism). Once its been created, replicating it in other countries is a very different process.