I made an essay.
I had a whole lengthy set of responses that got lost due to errors trying to submit it so I'll keep this as a single but longer reply.

It will be just concerning China as I feel the peoples' of that region had factors that, like Russia, were very difficult for a single regime to achieve. I also believe that prevailing ideals in the west such as Calvinism combined with catastrophes that changed the population along with the wars fought on so many different ethnic and ideological lines shaped the way Europe thus subsequently the 'western' world utilized capital to promote private or semi-private industry.
The Qing dynasty ruled based on tradition that was built upon that which the Ming ruled before it that was formed through philosophies that centered around the lore each dynasty that succeeded or was around at the same time as others. These records along with those which collectively talk about past are what created the identity of Chinese culture to the point that it even shaped the language itself. This was even preserved by the Mongols as it constituted such a strong cultural source of unification and maintaining rule in such a vast and populated expanse. A lot of cultures eventually maintain this kind of mythos but China's seems to be the lengthiest and with quite a bit of continuity despite how much has been lost.
It is a very strong set of meticulously preserving (or at least the perception of) traditions and historical events that cover a wide range of topics that effect policymaking as it was rigorously learned throughout the generations by those who made up the apparatus of ruling the country. History and teachings handed down tended to also show that individual ambition tended to lead to chaos and violence. So a very panoptic vigilance by those who ruled or helped the ruler was promoted since there was no foreign expeditions to send these people on for most of history if there wasn't a state of war. I think a Japanese proverb sums it up best as "The
nail that sticks out gets hammered down."
What is interesting is now through modern methods of archeology new findings and ways of translating thus understanding Confucius as well as other records of ancient Chinese history are being revealed. I admit China has had a history of embracing different philosophies when many people one has failed, such as competing philosophies behind Confucianism, Mohism (legalism) and Daoism.
One good way in my opinion to look into Chinese philosophy is exploring what many consider its cultural root which is Confucius's Analects, which he claims is simply his own attempt to perverse the 'old ways.' You see a pattern here?
http://www.asian-studies.org/EAA/jones.htm
When Mozi (legalist) challenged Confucianism with his own interpretation of the 'sage kings' his ideas seemed to be widely adopted by the rulers of the time. Mohism made proclamation such as stating making music was a waste of resources and it is the ghosts or spirits of good people that die which maintain the order of the world through fate. His philosophies may seem crazy today but it seems his texts were presented in the first recorded dialectic way of debating in the region, which must have made it seem convincing. So it was inevitable other philosophers who claimed to advocate Confucianism came about to challenge it such as Xunzi. But these people in the effort of defending Confucianism also changed it in a way that made it more authoritarian which the author may have hoped rulers reading saw as practical. But in a way it seems to me at least this Neo-Confucianism is what aided in setting subsequent Chinese dynasties down a path of increased isolation and resistance to change. It is ironic how the constant reforming of a philosophy lead to such cultural ossification.
I am not stating it is impossible for the Qing dynasty to industrialize. But to do in a way that is contemporarily described by mechanized and liberal nature(as Chinese kingdoms had held a qualitative and quantitative edge on production which many qualify as industry along with the Indian subcontinent) would require a fundamental shift in the interpretation of many Chinese texts. This would hopefully have the eventual outcome of teaching bureaucrats and rulers notions such as merchants might not be the highest class of people, but it doesn't make them lesser human beings.
In summary, the embrace of industrialization was not done through simple top down policy or what technology was available but also through what ideas came about at the time to turn it into an accepted norm. It is up to people and policy makers to reach a consensus to adopt it, even if there was no direct say involved. As far as modern industrialization goes, Britain easily adopted it due to prevailing ideas and needs of the time. For France it took a revolution. In US, I still believe it was not taken as an accepted facet of the entire society until after the ACW. Russia, like China. So for a TL for the Qing dynasty to embrace and successfully undertake industrialization without risk of falling is to be a fundamental shift in Chinese philosophy at the time which favored it. This would make a change in policy appear legitimate and in line with the prevailing mythos which played a heavy role in granting Chinese regimes legitimacy. It would hopefully lessen rebellion to a point that most people wouldn't believe the dynasty lost its mandate. They may lose land to foreign invaders in the process but a gradual acceptance would insure the Qing's survival post-industrialization.