Interesting. From an economics perspective I don't think Ferguson is wrong in his description of how the West developed ahead of other places though. It seems broadly consistent with the research that I've seen.
You're going to have to be more specific than that 
But Ferguson started out as an Economic Historian (one of the duller types; he was never a Braudel) and was quite competent in that field (and didn't even let his politics get in the way of his work; correctly demonstrating on one occasion that, no, there was nothing remotely left-wing about Nazi economic policy), so there you are. One of the problems with Niall Ferguson Public Intellectual and Homo Atlanticus is that he mostly writes outside his area and outside his period, but from a position of self-appointed authority.
In the sense that institutions like property rights and so on are usually considered to be the key features.
I don't really follow Mishra's rebuttal on that point. He seems to be saying that there was plenty of trade and economics going on in Asia and other places. Since I haven't read Ferguson in original I don't know if he denies this, but from my perspective it surely misses the point. Whatever was going on in China and Japan at the time it clearly was not comparable to what was happening in Western Europe.
I also don't get Mishra's stuff about inevatibility and asking the wrong question. I don't know what he means by inevitable but presumably something that happened in the West and not elsewhere happened here for certain reasons. There is a body of research trying to find what those reasons were and from what I can tell Ferguson seems to be within that sphere.
I mean, the rest I don't really know much about. I find the insinuating style Mishra employs rather dubious though. I'm a bit wary of that line of attack.
