I really like that graph. I suspect the Chinese may well be right in their assumption that "success is outside of their control", but few other countries have the same excuses.
There could be a case to be made that countries should monitor that metric very closely and work hard to improve their "Yes to No" ratio.
Also, having lived and worked in Italy, my number 1 reason for setting up my company (which failed) in the UK was the insane level of bureaucracy in Italy. It's farcical, near impossible to navigate and anyone who's prepared to deal with that level of antiquated incompetence, corruption and inefficiency needs their head looking at. It's a beautiful country, but it's rotten to the core.
Part of the Chinese belief of lack of control is the amazing amount of influence Confucian ideals still hold. How can one control one's destiny if they're beholden to their family, their elders and society. It's hard to be an innovator if individuality is discouraged. I'm not implying that Chinese men and women can't innovate, but I suspect they're disinclined to believe they can. It would be selfish to create a startup and risk failure which could jeopardize one's livelihood and therefore one's ability to continue the family. Also, failure would bring shame to the family. (There's a bit of stereotyping here, of course, and I'd love to hear from people who have spent time in Asia and could give me a more complete picture).
I think a large part of it is simply the belief that people with well-connected parents will succeed no matter what, and for a poor farmer to get to the top (competing with 1.3 billion peers) they need to be both incredibly lucky and talented and hard working. I don't think they think it's impossible to do fairly well, no matter who you are - if only because the government wants them to think that. People tend not to riot if they believe they have other options.
Most Chinese tend to be fairly pro-risk, but only after they have a degree. Cushy government jobs, or white-collar jobs in big corporations are preferred, but a reasonable number of Chinese want to start businesses. You don't have to meet that many old ladies selling wonton soup making twice the average wage of a university graduate to know the value of starting a business.
I don't think Confucianism is sufficient to explain it. They don't feel a loss of control because they're beholden to their families. That's a little silly.
It's really mostly the other pillar of Chinese culture; Taoism. The two belief systems over the centuries go through cycles of being influential and Taoism in the new capitalistic China is re-emergent.
Taoism is really a lot about individualism, but it's also about going with the flow of life. It's called "following the Tao" and is very fatalistic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_wei
Confucianism is historically the heart of Chinese culture. Taoism has never been as singularly influential in China as Confucianism has, nor is its "resurgence" sweeping away Confucianism. Assigning the idea of e.g. fatalism to "mostly Taoism" is also inaccurate. As far as popular beliefs go, Confucian, Taoist, and Buddhist beliefs have mixed together in the past centuries when we're talking about the influence of these set of teachings on the Chinese population (at least before 1949). Categorizing Value X as belonging to System A is too simple.
(sry posting from a different account, but same person)
I think your views of Chinese culture is being colored by a skin deep look at China's past hundred years. I think as a a whole Chinese history would disagree with you. During times of dynastic change Taoism was the prevailing cultural trope. Because dynastic change isn't the majority of historical time it can give the impression that Confucianism is the dominant "religion", but these moments of turmoil are critical and their effects are long lasting. Taoism (or at least their way of looking at things) is always in the background.
Just as an example, look at the literati culture after the take over of the Yuan Dynasty. Southern Song loyalists persisted for about two generations and really revitalized Taoist-inspired world views. They were the driving engine of Chinese culture during that time. Things like romanticizing the farmer, living of the land, the life of recluses etc.
A very similar thing happened after the take over of the Qing dynasty. Ming loyalists revitalized many of the same ideas.
During more tumultuous times Chinese turn to the more individualistic, less paternalistic side of their Culture as the central authority (and everything it represents - a father figure, the cultural vanguard etc.) erodes.
Right now, with the influx of Western ideas/culture and lifestyle the authority of the Communist regime is eroding to an extent. People view it as corrupt, inept and it doesn't command the respect it once had.
I think there is a cultural "swing" that is going to happen. And my argument was that neither system is conducive to entrepreneurship
"Assigning the idea of e.g. fatalism to "mostly Taoism" is also inaccurate."
it's obviously an over simplification on my part. It's a complicated multifaceted world view of course, but fatalism plays an important part from what I understand.
It's a little unfortunate that you didn't elaborate because I'd love to know your view of Taoism. I'm by no means an expert (haven't read any Taoist literature for instance), but from what I know it isn't the belief system of the capitalist-entrepreneur.
___
Example of Taoist influence:
I've mostly approached Chinese culture from the artistic perspective, but look at for example Bada Shanren (Ming Loyalist), vs. like
Even without knowing a lot of abotu Chinese art, you can see that Shen Zhou has a more traditional Confusian take on art (he's imitating the masters. That's why his work looks more "generic") while Bada is a lot more experimental and lets his individuality come through his art (Shen does too, but in more subtler ways that aren't very easy to explain).
Have a look at the Geert Hofstede Cultural Dimensions, the five dimensions may allow a richer explanation than the 'yes' and 'no' question. There is an over arching theory independent of local characteristics as well - might even be falsifiable (aka Popper)!
There could be a case to be made that countries should monitor that metric very closely and work hard to improve their "Yes to No" ratio.
Also, having lived and worked in Italy, my number 1 reason for setting up my company (which failed) in the UK was the insane level of bureaucracy in Italy. It's farcical, near impossible to navigate and anyone who's prepared to deal with that level of antiquated incompetence, corruption and inefficiency needs their head looking at. It's a beautiful country, but it's rotten to the core.