Comparative Public Administration (CPA) emerged as a field dedicated to understanding administrative systems across different cultures and nations. Initially, in the post-World War II era, CPA often focused on transferring Western administrative models to developing countries, a phase sometimes criticized for its ethnocentric biases and limited success.

The 1980s and 1990s marked a significant shift, giving CPA new momentum and a distinct orientation. This period saw a critical re-evaluation of earlier approaches and the emergence of several key developments:

1. Beyond Western-Centric Models: There was a growing recognition that administrative systems are deeply embedded in unique socio-cultural, political, and economic contexts. The idea of universal administrative principles or direct transferability of models from one context to another was increasingly questioned. This led to a greater emphasis on understanding indigenous administrative practices and the specific challenges faced by different nations.
2. Rise of New Public Management (NPM): The global spread of NPM, originating in Western countries, significantly influenced CPA. NPM advocated for market-oriented reforms, efficiency, effectiveness, and citizen-centricity in public services. CPA studies began to critically examine the applicability, adaptation, and outcomes of NPM principles in diverse national settings, highlighting both successes and failures.
3. Focus on Governance: The concept of 'governance' gained prominence, shifting the focus from solely state-centric 'government' to a broader understanding that includes non-state actors like civil society organizations, private sector entities, and international bodies in policy-making and implementation. CPA started analyzing these multi-actor arrangements and their implications for public administration.
4. Globalization and Interdependence: Increased globalization, economic liberalization, and the rise of international organizations (e.g., WTO, IMF, World Bank) meant that national administrative systems were no longer isolated. CPA began to explore the impact of global trends, international norms, and cross-national learning on domestic public administration.
5. Methodological Sophistication: The field adopted more rigorous comparative methodologies, moving beyond descriptive case studies to more systematic cross-national comparisons, often employing both quantitative and qualitative research methods to build more robust theories.
6. Re-evaluation of Development Administration: The earlier focus on purely economic growth in development administration was broadened to include sustainable development, human rights, good governance, and institutional capacity building.

Critical Examination: While the 1980s and 1990s indeed brought a fresh perspective to CPA, the shift was not without its complexities and criticisms. Some argue that despite the stated objective of moving beyond Western models, new forms of Western influence persisted, particularly through the promotion of NPM and 'good governance' agendas by international financial institutions, often with conditionalities. This raised questions about whether the new orientation truly fostered indigenous development or merely repackaged Western ideals. Furthermore, the field, while becoming more diverse, also faced challenges in achieving theoretical coherence and practical relevance across such varied contexts. Nevertheless, this period undeniably enriched CPA by broadening its scope, deepening its analytical tools, and fostering a more nuanced understanding of global administrative phenomena.