What
Marc Pasquin said, basically. If, however, you mean to achieve an industrialized wold without (as you said) "centralized nation states that dominate the present day map," but will accept local governments, such as city-states etc. ...well, then it becomes very possible. Very plausible, even, since history has often demonstrated that many competing city-states are likely to achieve rapid innovation (largely
because of their competitive situation).
What does help is the removal of restictions on travel and trade. Those can become crippling when you have countless polities, and thus gazillions of borders.

If the rise of the modern nation-state could be prevented, and Europe becomes something like a radically decentralized Holy Roman Empire consisting of numerous microstates that all agree to allow unrestricted trade and travel, that would probably be a good thing for all kinds of innovation (scientific, technological, philosophical, political, legal, economical...)
After all: it would mean that lots of different competing approaches could be tried out on a political, legal, economical level. More importantly, it would mean that scientists, inventors and thinkers who might otherwise be suppressed or persecuted by a centralized government could just hop across the border and continue their study unmolested in the next town over... which would also be another country.

This actually happened, after all, when France was a increasingly centralized monarchy, and Germany and the Dutch Republic were not. Many persecuted French thinkers fled to the smaller states, where they could easily relocate if they got persecuted.
Is this idea of radical
Kleinstaaterei something that meets your criteria,
Fox Eating Bamboo?