After the micro politics, the complexity of the “public management”, polity and policies, is the same of the “private management” or the management of the others sectors of the social production reality. The science of management it is not defined by products, functions, sectors and so on, as occurs in the economic as discipline with it focus on finance or bank. The reasons for the activity of ... [Show full abstract] public and the private management are the same: the persons (market). In a post-modernism way and by influence or “imposition” of non-public big organizations, nowadays, we said “objectives”, corporate, agency theory and others best and next steps like new public management. In this form any drive is valid and, after all, the driver don’t require any content. In that form, we are entering in the world of anaesthetics impressionisms and modernism. The costs, crisis and bankruptcy of that are enormous. Nowadays we know it, but, in fact, we know it since 1960-1980 by project PIMS, MBO, bureaucracy/autocracy and others mechanics budgets accounts. That idealisticism and arithmetic management, economics, and influent organizations put in market one socio-psychologism and not an objective management. So, by descriptive and evidence mode, we conclude that when it applied in public administration, independently of the regime, the desired reform of the organization –in a strategic line, “society”- not occurs.