This article is a contribution to the debate over Asia' s economic crisis. In particular it explores the actions and motives of one of the key actors in the Asian crashÐ the International Monetary Fund. The article demonstrates that the IMF does not have a monopoly of social or economic wisdom (far from it). If the Fund' s neoliberal crusaders can be reined in, and alternatives explored, the crisis can offer Asia the chance to forge democratic and sustainable alternatives to the ruinous development path of recent years. If not, then ordinary Asians could come to look back on the 1970s and 1980s as a golden era. That would indeed be a tragic testament to the failings of the`rescue packages' of 1997.The article begins by describing what actually happened in the three worst hit countries of Thailand, Indonesia and South Korea. It goes on to explore the human impact of the crisis. This provides the material for a detailed analysis of the IMF' s role, and of the numerous failings in its performance to date. The article concludes with recommendations for reform of the Bretton Woods institutions, and the international ® nancial system. Criticising the solutions imposed by the IMF in no way implies an uncritical endorsement of Asian development models. The political and economic systems in these countries have brought improvements in health, education and living standards. But the cost has been high in terms of sharpening the divide between rich and poor of environmental exploitation and loss of community control over natural resources, and of growth without economic democracy or the expansion of political participation.