Bullshit. Truly, what nonsense. Europe spent centuries stagnating under the rules of multiple fiefdoms in constant attrition against each other for power, wealth, territory and so forth. Many other parts of the world did likewise for long stretches of time and in both cases, only moderate technical advancement that happened very, very slowly. It was only when certain very specific conditions of government stability, property protection, legal transparency and basic respect for individual and human rights helped certain states become prosperous. This was further helped by these states accumulating enough capital under conditions of prolonged internal peace to invest in aspects of wealth-facilitating public infrastructure. What you claim is the diametric opposite of basic reality. Asia during much of the middle ages at times fulfilled conditions of state stability, but it often did not coincide with certain other systemic requirements for widespread markets to develop. Instead, the stability was of an autocratic and arbitrary type that facilitated stagnant top-down paternalism.