Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Vol. 13 No. sp7 (2026): International Conference on Agricultural Sustainability

Determinants of accountability in agricultural programs through a contingency perspective

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.14386
Submitted
4 March 2026
Published
02-09-2026

Abstract

Enhancing public accountability in Indonesia's agricultural sector is critical to ensure effective management of government aid (subsidised fertilisers and quality seeds) and to support national food security. Transparency and resource optimisation issues persist in public administration, potentially disrupting the supply chain of essential plant production inputs. This study examines the determinants of accountability in agricultural program implementation by analysing the influence of the integrity system, internal control system (ICS) and transformative leadership. It also investigates the moderating effects of organisational commitment and environmental uncertainty on these relationships. Employing a quantitative survey design, primary data were collected from 210 government finance officials and staff involved in agricultural oversight. Structural equation modelling (SEM) was utilised to test the proposed hypotheses. The empirical results indicate that the integrity system (β = 0.168, p < 0.001) and transformative leadership (β = 0.142, p < 0.001) have a positive and significant influence on government accountability, whereas the internal control system does not demonstrate a direct significant effect (β = 0.082, p = 0.168). Crucially, the study finds that organisational commitment and environmental uncertainty act as significant moderators, strengthening the impact of integrity and leadership on accountability. These findings suggest that fostering a culture of integrity and adaptive leadership, supported by strong commitment, is more effective than relying solely on formal bureaucratic controls. This study offers practical insights for policymakers to formulate strategies that enhance governance in agricultural development, ultimately ensuring the timely delivery of inputs required for optimal crop yield and plant health.

References

  1. 1. Cevahir A, Çalıyurt K. Evaluating and rating of corporate governance and internal auditing practice in public companies 1: Case from Turkey. Ethics Sustain Account Financ. 2021;2(13):235–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1928-4_14
  2. 2. Mauliza S, Astuti W, Irfan. The influence of budget participation, accountability and clarity of budget targets on performance with organizational commitment as a moderating variable in the management of regional education councils. J Ris Akunt dan Bisnis. 2022;8(1):18–26.
  3. 3. Sofyani H, Pratolo S, Saleh Z. Do accountability and transparency promote community trust? Evidence from village government in Indonesia. J Account Organ Chang. 2021;18(3):397–418. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAOC-06-2020-0070
  4. 4. Arun T, Adhikari P, Mohan R. Learning accountability in the public sector: The experience of Kerala. Financ Account Manag. 2020;37(3):1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/faam.12248
  5. 5. Mildawati T, Fidiana F. Transparency and accountability of higher education budget performance through financial information system integration. J Ris dan Apl Akunt dan Manaj. 2019;4(1):1–10.
  6. 6. Alam MM, Said J, Abd Aziz MA. Role of integrity system, internal control system, and leadership practices on the accountability practices in the public sectors of Malaysia. Energy Policy Econ eJournal. 2019;15(7):955–76. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-03-2017-0051
  7. 7. Hardiningsih P, Udin U, Masdjojo GN, Srimindarti C. Does competency, commitment, and internal control influence accountability? J Asian Financ Econ Bus. 2020;7(4):223–33. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no4.223
  8. 8. Putri WJ, Kusumawardani A. The influence of village apparatus competence, transparency, community participation and internal control systems on accountability of village fund management. J Ris Akunt Politala. 2025;8(1):146–56.
  9. 9. Zuhro PRS. Democracy and transformative leadership. Himmah J Kaji Islam Kontemporer. 2021;5(2):359–74. https://doi.org/10.47313/jkik.v5i2.1463
  10. 10. Hinson RE, Madichie N, Adeola O, Bawole JN, Adisa I, Asamoah K. New public management in Africa: An introduction. London: Palgrave Macmillan; 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77181-2
  11. 11. Manik LF, Sari EN, Irfan. The influence of competence and accountability on budget preparation with organizational commitment as a moderating variable in private high schools in North Medan. J Ris Akunt dan Bisnis. 2022;8(2):19–29. https://doi.org/10.38204/jrak.v8i2.969
  12. 12. Saraswati NPA, Suhartini D. Accountability and transparency of budget performance based on the value for money concept: Organizational commitment as a moderating variable. Ekon J Econ Bus. 2022;6(2):459–64.
  13. 13. Widiana A, Wijaya C, Atmoko AW. The challenges of food security policy in Indonesia: Lesson learned from Vietnam, India, and Japan. Tech Soc Sci J. 2022;33(2):1–15. https://doi.org/10.47577/tssj.v33i1.6937
  14. 14. Karniawati N, Indonesia K, Indonesia UK. Evaluation of the implementation of subsidized fertilizer distribution policy under Garut Regency Regulation No. 876/2013. J Local Polit Goverment Stud. 2024;4(1):35–42.
  15. 15. Kementerian Pertanian. Indonesian agricultural commodity outlook 2024. Jakarta: Kementerian Pertanian; 2024.
  16. 16. World Bank. Indonesia economic prospects, June 2024 economic update, outlook, and structural trends. Washington (DC): World Bank; 2024.
  17. 17. Tadesse Z, Tadesse T, Ayalew D. Effects of time of nitrogen fertilizer application on the growth and productivity of rice (Oryza sativa L) in Fogera Plain, North Western Ethiopia. Int J Res Stud Agric Sci. 2017;3(9):36–44. https://doi.org/10.20431/2454-6224.0309006
  18. 18. Lambers H, Hayes PE, Laliberte E, Oliveira RS, Turner BL. Leaf manganese accumulation and phosphorus-acquisition efficiency. Trends Plant Sci. 2015;20(2):83–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2014.10.007
  19. 19. Mcguire S, Sperling L, Sperling L. Seed systems smallholder farmers use. Food Secur. 2016;8(1):179–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-015-0528-8
  20. 20. Hoekstra A, Huberts L, Van Montfort A. Content and design of integrity systems: Evaluating integrity systems in local government. Public Integr. 2023;25(2):137–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/10999922.2021.2014204
  21. 21. Trevinyo-Rodríguez RN. Integrity: A systems theory classification. J Manag Hist. 2017;13(1):74–93. https://doi.org/10.1108/17511340710715188
  22. 22. Yahya N, Said J, Zakaria NB, Atan R. Assessing and comparing the level of corporate integrity practices in Malaysian statutory bodies. Asia-Pacific Manag Account J. 2020;15(3):165–87. https://doi.org/10.24191/APMAJ.v15i3-07
  23. 23. Kabuye F, Kato J, Akugizibwe I, Bugambiro N. Internal control systems, working capital management and financial performance of supermarkets. Cogent Bus Manag. 2019;6(1):1573524. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1573524
  24. 24. Fernandhytia F. The effect of internal control, individual morality and ethical value on accounting fraud tendency. Media Ekon dan Manaj. 2020;35(1):112–27. https://doi.org/10.24856/mem.v35i1.1343
  25. 25. Fries A, Kammerlander N, Leitterstorf M. Leadership styles and leadership behaviors in family firms: A systematic literature review. J Fam Bus Strateg. 2021;12(6):1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2020.100374
  26. 26. Simpson P. Organizing in the mist: A case study in leadership and complexity. Leadersh Organ Dev J. 2017;28(5):465–82. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730710761751
  27. 27. Gonzalez RA, Firestone WA. Educational tug-of-war: Internal and external accountability of principals in varied contexts. J Educ Adm. 2023;51(3):383–406. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231311311528
  28. 28. Amabile TM, Schatzel EA, Moneta GB, Kramer SJ. Leader behaviors and the work environment for creativity: Perceived leader support. Leadersh Q. 2024;15(1):5–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.12.003
  29. 29. Ratifah I. Organizational commitment moderates the influence of regional financial accounting systems on the quality of financial reports. Trikonomika. 2022;11(1):29–39.
  30. 30. Suryadi I, Aminatuzzuhro. The influence of good governance and government accounting standards on financial accountability with organizational commitment as a moderator. INCOME J Akunt dan Keuang. 2021;2(2):33–45. https://doi.org/10.38156/akuntansi.v2i2.96
  31. 31. Zulfikar R, Ruhiat Y. University governance and higher education performance: Organizational commitment as a moderating variable. J Akuntansi Ekon dan Manaj Bisnis. 2018;6(1):93–101. https://doi.org/10.30871/jaemb.v6i1.815
  32. 32. Badar R. The influence of budget participation and ethics on budgetary gap. J Akrab Juara. 2021;6(5):1–12.
  33. 33. Shaoul J, Stafford A, Stapleton P. Accountability and corporate governance of public private partnerships. Crit Perspect Account. 2022;23(3):213–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2011.12.006
  34. 34. Djamaludin M. The influence of organizational commitment, career development, work motivation and individual characteristics on job satisfaction and performance of government employees in East Halmahera Regency. DIE - J Ilmu Ekon dan Manaj. 2019;5(2):69–80.
  35. 35. Benitez J, Henseler J, Castillo A, Schuberth F. How to perform and report an impactful analysis using partial least squares: Guidelines for confirmatory and explanatory IS research. Inf Manag. 2020;57(2):1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2019.05.003
  36. 36. Fatika YH, Umar H, Nirmalawati D. Analysis of the effectiveness of the distribution of subsidized fertilizer programs in Indonesia. J Dr Manaj. 2025;8(2):196–205. https://doi.org/10.22441/jdm.v8i2.33990
  37. 37. Mintrop H. Bridging accountability obligations, professional values and (perceived) student needs with integrity. J Educ Adm. 2022;55(5):695–726. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231211249871
  38. 38. Aziz MAA, Rahman HA, Alam MM, Said J. Enhancement of the accountability of public sectors through integrity system, internal control system and leadership practices: A review study. Procedia Econ Financ. 2025;28:163–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)01096-5
  39. 39. Harjanto P, Fahmid IM, Ali S, Demmallino EB. Institutional development of farmers through agricultural area-based corporations in Indonesia. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci. 2022;1–7. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1114/1/012039
  40. 40. World Bank. Indonesia economic prospects: Digital foundations for growth. Washington (DC): World Bank; 2025.
  41. 41. Sweetenia AM, Caesari EPA, Aprilia AF, Purwantin AH. The influence of competence, internal control systems, and the quality of financial report presentation on village government accountability. J Anal Bisnis Ekon. 2019;17(1):44–56. https://doi.org/10.31603/bisnisekonomi.v17i1.2752
  42. 42. Shaliza F, Sumardjo S, Sadono D, Uchrowi Z. The synergy of agricultural extension and farmer group leadership in promoting farmers’ independence in the digital era. BIO Web Conf. 2025;186:02007. https://doi.org/10.1051/bioconf/202518602007
  43. 43. Malau LRE, Rambe KR, Ulya NA, Purba AG. The impact of climate change on food crop production in Indonesia. J Penelit Pertan Terap. 2023;23(1):34–46. https://doi.org/10.25181/jppt.v23i1.2418
  44. 44. Burns T, Stalker GM. The management of innovation. Rech Écon Louvain. 1962;28(6):659. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0770451800102982

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.