tl;dr - Kings were like mob bosses, and ruled on their whim. Replacing them with Paliaments meant that one could not rule on whim but were forced to come to equilibriums (nash?) between many capos - and as they could not trust each other they had to develop bureaucrats to monitor and report and trust on their behalf.

In short design by committee might be bad but rule by committee helps.

The role of a merchant-friendly parliament is associated with British success in the 1700+ centuries - from hands-off rule of colonies that then can stand alone, to courts that were less under the capricous whim of rulers than many. It all seemed to have helped.

So I kind of disagree with the premise - a parliament based market and human rights friendly nation could have been successful at almost any point post 1500. All it took was to wrench power away from the monarch...