“Neither the Western powers, with their hegemonic supremacy and colonial rules, nor their transportation and communication revolutions, were powerful enough to change the production and consumption structures of Asia in a fundamental way” (p. 19). Just as Kaoru Sugihara points out in the first contribution to the edited volume Commodities, Ports and Asian Maritime Trade, historians of Asia have long argued against the idea that the history of Asia over the last four hundred years is a simple story of the imposition of Western power. Instead, they have argued that Asians not only were able to resist, but also helped to shape the European expansion and transition toward industrialization and modernity. The main approach in this edited volume is not much different. When it comes to maritime trade in Asia, we should similarly refrain from studying how “‘Western supremacy’ came about, on the basis of Western initiatives alone” (p. 1). Put differently, the contributors to this edited volume are mainly interested in “how British, European and Asian commercial networks interacted in the period from 1750 to today” (back cover).

Historians certainly agree that these cross-cultural commercial networks have interacted since and even before 1750, but the editors rightfully signal in their introduction that this has not always been the case. Before the 1980s, the commercial and colonial expansion of Europe was the main focus of research, with historians generally giving little room to the Asian part of the story. In the 1980s, historians challenged this Western-centric vision of commercial domination over Asia. Instead of seeing the Asian economy as structurally stagnant before and after the arrival of the Europeans, they saw how Europeans arrived and conducted trade in an economically vibrant Asia. In maritime trade, Asian traders probably often equaled or even surpassed European activities well into and even during the colonial era, but historians have only touched on the rough edges of this trade. The fact that this trade never died out is clearly visible in the recent economic ascendency of Asia, which allows us to view this development as a continuation of an old (and non-European) pattern. In turn, it also shows how the European “colonial intermezzo” was the exception and not the rule.

The continual vibrancy of the Asian economy shines through in several contributions. Logically, it is mainly visible in the chapters on the periods before and after colonization, namely, at the end of the eighteenth century and in more recent times (the twentieth century). Heather Sutherland clearly shows how East Indonesia was on the edge of Asian trade and how different contenders, both European and Asian, were constantly played against each other in this region. Gerrit Knaap argues that local traders of different origins in Semarang were “far from dead” around the year 1775, even though the Dutch East India Company tried to impose its monopolies and power on them (p. 92). Ghulam Nadri claims that Indian merchants in Surat were not necessarily displaced by English merchants in Bombay even when the British started to impose their authority in the region. Pui-Tak Lee gives us an interesting insight into how a merchant from Hong Kong financed his business through local Asian networks between 1900 and 1950. In this sense, the choice of the authors to study the period from 1750 until the present already puts the Asian economy's vitality in a long perspective.

Another question the book asks is how we should understand the impact of European colonialism on Asian economies. Instead of asking this question directly, the editors make an argument for following in the footsteps of the theories of Sugihara. In short, their claim is that the European commercial (and colonial) expansion had a positive effect on the development of the Asian economy. In this view, the Asian economy was modernized in the nineteenth century through the implementation of European institutions and the encapsulation of Asia in the global financial system. This vision is mostly supported by the analysis of the British Empire, but the book moves beyond studying it alone. Some chapters devote a far larger part of the story to interaction among Westerners, between European and Asian merchants, or even simply among Asians. This helps us move away from national histories (especially British) toward a more internationally orientated history. Ferry de Goey discusses some interesting case studies of how Western merchants in Japan dealt with a culturally hybrid space. Roger Knight shows that Western companies were born in Asian trade without interference from or connections to the home country. Christof Dejung studies how local capital financed Western participation in the Indian cotton trade between 1850 and 1930. Thomas Lindblad clearly illustrates how changes in Indonesian political circumstances influenced the short-term strategies of Dutch enterprises, which after World War II shifted to an exit strategy aimed at extracting dividends.

Notwithstanding the many good points this book makes about Asian history, the history of European interaction with Asia, and the history of British commercial networks, it has some weak points. First of all, some authors continue to study national case studies that put Europe at the center instead of Asia. It is necessary to move away from such “national” histories of empires (especially the British Empire) to fully grasp the importance of Asian participation in these empires. A second issue regards the title, in which commodities receive particular relevance, theoretically allowing them to surpass national histories; however, only one chapter really engages with a particular commodity, whereas the rest focus on ports or regions instead. A final apparent problem is that almost all contributors analyze specific case studies, which logically entails that they tell only a very small part of a larger story. Nonetheless, it is exactly the choice of small case studies and primary sources that makes this book easily accessible and interesting to read.