自20世纪80年代以来，针对公共管理的政治修辞一直是减少分配给公共支出的开支。虽然这具有全球性的影响，在英国和Thatcher政府和里根和布什政府在美国和布莱尔政府中都可以看出修辞的相似性，但其影响要精确得多。B. Guy Peters评论说：“无论出于什么原因，像“削减”、“私有化”和“放松管制”之类的字眼，在过去十年左右的政治界就一直在讨论新的公共项目，或者扩大现有的公共项目。减税和削减公共管理的公共性的想法，而在美国的内源性和建立在政府的回应公众舆论，已被用来作为一种模式在其他国家，往往灾难性的结果。阿根廷，菲律宾，和新加坡的经济崩溃，随着在第三世界国家所欠债务的敲诈的金额都可归因于外部因素的基础上，采用美国模型。国际货币基金组织，有效地管理给予国家贷款，还规定，为了符合资格，国家必须挑起某些经济改革。这些通常涉及公共服务，如公用事业和医疗保健，工会解散和其他公共设施的侵蚀显着私有化。所有这些因素都是外源性因素的建成使国家运转，必要贷款的实现，除了智利，经常导致近瞬时崩溃的经济和上层建筑公共管理已经到位，在那些“自由”的经济体。彼得斯（2001）的评论：“在许多第三世界国家一样回滚已完成减少内源性的政治进程不是由国际组织如世界银行和国际货币基金组织的参与。”他补充说，然而，“即使在这里，[…]国家几乎没有被拆除，该革命后不久，强大的公共机构被认为有必要帮助重组缺乏经济基础和管理新解放的社会问题的处理”（25）。因此，即使有了国家，国家机器已经为它以前站为了防止混乱中保持基本完好。国际货币基金组织和世界银行在根本上重组政策的最新发展表明，在健全的公共行政程序的发展外生因素的负面影响。
Since the 1980s political rhetoric directed towards public administration has been to reduce the amounts of spending allocated to public spending. While this has had global implications, and similarities in rhetoric can be seen in both the Thatcher and Blair governments in the UK and in the Reagan and Bush administration in the US, the effects are much harder to pinpoint exactly. B. Guy Peters comments that “for whatever reasons, words like ‘cutbacks,’ ‘privatization’ and ‘deregulation’ became common parlance in political circles that a decade or so ago might have been discussing new public programs, or the expansion of existing ones” (25). The idea of the popularity of tax cuts and cutting back funding for public administration, while endogenous in the US and built upon the government’s response to public opinion, has been used as a model in other countries, often with catastrophic results. The economic collapse of Argentina, The Philippines, and Singapore, along with the extortionate amounts of debt owed by countries in the Third World can all be attributed to exogenous factors based on the adoption of the US model. The IMF, which effectively governs the granting of loans to countries, also stipulate that, in order to qualify, countries have to instigate certain economic reforms. These have normally involved significant privatization of public services such as utilities and healthcare, the dissolution of unions and the erosion of other public facilities. All of these factors are exogenous factors built into the attainment of a necessary loan to keep the country afloat, and, with the exception of Chile, have frequently led to the near instantaneous collapse of the economy and the superstructures of public administration that have been put into place in those “freed” economies. Peters (2001) comments that “In many Third World countries the same rolling back has been accomplished less by endogenous political processes than by the involvement of international organizations such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.” He adds, however, that “Even here […] the state has hardly been dismantled and, soon after the revolutions, powerful public institutions are seen to be necessary to help restructure the inadequate economic bases and deal with the problems of managing newly-freed societies” (25). Thus, even with revolutionised economies, the state apparatus has to remain largely intact as it previously stood in order to prevent the ensuing chaos. Recent developments in the IMF and World Bank in radically restructuring policy have shown the negative impact of exogenous factors in the development of sound public administrative processes.