Canada had Mulroney and Britain had Thatcher with Reagan.

  Reagan declared that he had come to Washington to “drain the swamp” of bureaucracy, and set up the Grace Commission to investigate the operation of the U.S. government. Thatcher and Mulroney were equally committed to reform and initiated wide-ranging changes. By the end of the 1990s, the changes were dramatic. Many governments operations had been privatized in all three countries, and new management techniques had been introduced. In Great Britain, one observer judged that the changes were historically as important as the collapse of Keynesian economics. Is government now better in these countries, and was political leadership right in focusing on management of the bureaucracy as the villain? Savoie suggests that the reforms overlooked problems now urgently requiring attention and, at the same time, attempted to address non-existent problems. He combines theory and research based on sixty-two interviews, nearly all with members of the executive branch of the governments of Britain, Canada and the United States.
  --Thatcher, Reagan, and Mulroney, In Search of a New Bureaucracy By Donald J. Savoie

It's spooky that all these countries did the same thing at the same time.

Also arguably, in the US, it started under Carter (though Reagan became the face of it).

Kind of like how Trump is the face of the "decoupling" from China, but this built on the "Obama Pivot", and seems to be being continued (maybe a little better) by Biden?

The paranoid part of me wants to blame whatever happens at Davos and whatnot, but it's probably just "the intellectual spirit of the times".

Yes, the conservative-neoliberal alliance that has produced terrible inequality and political institutions incapable of solving problems because they aren't actually responsive to the public... succeeded everywhere.