As for the topic's title. Perhaps, it was the
culture and
work ethic of these nations, coupled with their creation of the right
environment in which business could thrive, as well as an amalgamation of other sundry factors - such as their lands being rich in resources, or their histories being relevantly peaceful, or their maintenance of political stability - that led to their respective successes.
Then explain China. Business certainly thrives there, despite the relatively recent tyranny of Mao's Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward. Russia (whatever we may think of their leadership) has made great strides since the meltdown of the USSR and their economic default in the late '90's, and may become a first-world nation despite their faux democracy. Brazil is flirting with first-world status, and the culture there certainly doesn't have the same reputation of the work ethic of, say, Japan or Germany. And it's not a matter of being rich in resources (Japan and England have always been resource-poor) or of relatively peaceful histories or political stability (e.g. Europe and Japan after the world wars, S. Korea after the Korean War).
In other words, while culture can play a major role in the success (or lack thereof) of a nation, it is (as can be seen by the success of several nations in the Middle East) by no means a sure-fire determinant of national success, and the other factors you listed are not as effectual as you seem to believe.
And one more thing - I listed China and Russia not because they are first-world democracies (which they certainly are not), but because of the degree of economic success they are both enjoying relative to recent great national turmoil.
The "First World" did not succeed due to the existence of the welfare state and socialised programmes. Rather, the "First World's" success led to the existence of the welfare state and socialised programmes.
One can understand that argument...but if the socialized programs were in any way a hindrance to the growth of the economy or the strength of the nation, then this should have been seen in the generations after such were adopted, particularly as compared to the growth and development of nations without those socialized programs.
I might also retort that the "First World" nations many here wish to emulate are homogeneous and small. Consider that their systems cannot be imported across the Atlantic.
Tell that to Japan, S. Korea, and Taiwan, all of whom have followed the same model...especially considering the fact that Japan and S. Korea adopted these systems from the very beginning following utter devastation from war in the last century.