You might want to consider using a different example, there. Norway’s mean population density is about half that of the US. About 2/3 of the country is mountainous wasteland, and there are plenty of places where you would think, “Surely no one lives there any more?” until you notice the car in the driveway and the satellite dish on the roof 
Despite the half-legendary isolation policy of the Tokugawa, there had been limited contact with the Dutch and some scholars (in Osaka?) kept abrest of European discoveries. That helped. The Japanese had a high literacy rate and still do; it’s a huge cultural goal and they don’t have the difficulties with immigration and assimilation that many new world or east Asian countries do today. This meant they were relatively educated.
The government was also fairly corruption-free and unified to a degree unknown outside Europe or the US. It had a large body of ambitious young (former) Samurai who were willing to start new businesses with their old personal and government contracts. Most of today’s companies in Japan got their earliest start in some fashion from this period.
Of these factors, I believe the most important was that the government was friendly to business and investment, protected property rights, and invested in education. And in theory, any 3rd world nation which followed this path would be capable of rising quickly, assuming they could manage the resulting social change.
This is partly true but also misleading. India is a democracy but on with an overly influential socialist tradition. This seriously hampers their economic growth, though they are doing better now. As much as I dislike China’s moral status and unethical behavior, China actually started moving away from socialism earlier.
I think ** Even sven** was pretty clear about that when he said “dictatorships can be great in terms of raw industrialization”
Out of curiosity: if any of the above is a disqualifier, who would you suppose has acheived “greatness”?
On-topic: I remember reading an interesting theory once that Japan adapted more successfuly than similarly-situated cultures because they were incredibly racist at the time. Basically, the thoery goes that all cultures consider themsleves superior, but typically that notion of superiority is inseperably tied to cultural practices and traditions. The Japanese had a unique belief that they were superior by virtue of race alone, leaving them far more psychological lattitude to incorporate western practices into their cultural traditions.
It sounds suspect, but I wouldn’t be suprised if there was some insight to be gained from the theory.