you'd be closer to the target if you pointed your finger at large financial institutions like goldman sachs and the world bank/IMF. but even these can't singularly explain the business and economic trends we've seen in the past 50 years, much less the "rise of the MBA".
Tl;dr - Academic economic theories in the 1970s, as implemented by MBAs in the 1980s, represented a sea change in how a publicly listed company was expected to behave.
Previously, it had been a balance (to taste) of "fairness", "return to workers", "social good", and "shareholder profit."
Post, shareholder profit was weighted above all else.
The argument was that this would result in better managed, more efficient, more productive companies.
I'm not sure history has born that out...
A private business is always shareholder centric. Anything else would be schizophrenic. Non-profits and government organisations are different, but thinking that people start a business NOT because they want to earn money is insane.
What you are talking about is the agency problem where CEOs manipulate financials of a company to reach their bonus targets. That's only possible for public traded companies and it's a well-known problem in organisational behaviour. Thing is, there is no connection with an MBA degree. It would be great if people needed an MBA before they would be corrupted by power, but unfortunately it's not the case.