One of the most striking aspects of attempts to manage the crisis in East Asia has been the very different roles played by APEC and the IME Although both organizations have similar market‐centred reform agendas, APEC has been conspicuous by its absence in the wake of the crisis. This paper considers the actions of both organizations and their very different approaches to institutional reform. It is suggested that the crisis in general and the actions of these two organizations in particular provides a timely opportunity to review the more influential varieties of institutional theory to see whether they provide either useful tools for understanding the roles and activities of APEC and the IMF, or plausible models of reform for policy‐makers.