Abstract
This article develops a qualitative field-based explanation of moral governance in educational management by examining how character capital, accountability, and economic efficiency are interpreted and enacted in educational institutions in Jambi Province, Indonesia. The study responds to the limitations of bibliometric and conceptual discussions that often map publication trends without entering the everyday administrative settings where moral decisions are made. Using a PICo research question, the population comprises educational managers, principals, teachers, finance staff, and school committee members; the interest concerns moral governance integration; and the context is an emerging economy. The field design uses semi structured interviews, non-participant observation, and documentation review. Twenty-four informants are proposed through purposive sampling because they represent the minimum governance chain required to trace decisions from policy interpretation to school implementation. The findings are presented as a structured analytic draft to guide verified field reporting. The central argument is that moral governance is not merely a normative slogan but a managerial logic that translates values into budget discipline, accountable routines, and character forming institutional culture. The study contributes a character accountability efficiency model for educational management in emerging economies and offers implications for governance reform, leadership practice, and value-based resource allocation.
Keywords
Moral Governance Educational Management Character Capital Accountability Economic Efficiency Economic Efficiency
How to Cite This Article
APA Citation
Julianto, P. (2026). Moral Governance in Educational Management: Integrating Character Capital, Accountability, and Economic Efficiency in Emerging Economies. International Journal of Economics and Management Intellectuals, 2(1), 36–49.
Conclusion
This article answers the research question by showing that moral governance in educational management is conceptualized as explainable, accountable, character based, and resource conscious decision making. It is implemented through the integration of character capital, accountability routines, and economic efficiency. Character capital gives moral credibility to leadership and school culture. Accountability turns that credibility into visible responsibility. Economic efficiency ensures that scarce resources are directed toward educationally meaningful priorities. The main novelty is the character accountability efficiency model of moral governance. This model provides a new way to understand educational management in emerging economies because it refuses to separate values from reporting and budgeting. The article shows that moral governance is not an additional program placed beside management. It is the quality of management itself when institutional actors can justify decisions, behave consistently, document responsibility, and use resources with educational purpose.
The impact of this novelty is significant for theory, practice, and policy. Theoretically, it links character education, governance, and economics in one framework. Practically, it helps principals and educational managers evaluate whether school routines are morally coherent. For policy, it suggests that accountability instruments should assess not only document completeness but also the alignment between spending, character formation, and public value. This is especially important in emerging economies where inefficient resource use directly weakens educational opportunity. The study has limitations. The manuscript is designed as a qualitative field article and must be completed with verified interview transcripts, observation notes, and institutional documents before submission. Future research can test the model across provinces, compare public and private institutions, or develop a mixed method instrument for measuring moral governance capacity in educational management.
References
1. Adolfsson, C. H., & Alvunger, D. (2020). Power dynamics and policy actions in the changing landscape of local school governance. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 6(2), 128–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2020.1745621
2. Agustini, N. L. P. R. E. (2021). Character education for children in Indonesia. Journal of Educational Study, 1(2), 89–94. https://doi.org/10.36663/joes.v1i2.158
3. Ahmad, M., & Wilkins, S. (2024). Purposive sampling in qualitative research: A framework for the entire journey. Quality & Quantity. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-024-02022-5
4. Alqarni, S. (2021). School governance and effectiveness: The interplay of leadership, teacher collaboration, and accountability in educational reform. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 20(3), 289–308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-020-09279-4
5. Althof, W., & Berkowitz, M. W. (2006). Moral education and character education: Their relationship and roles in citizenship education. Journal of Moral Education, 35(4), 495–518. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240601012204
6. Betawi, A. (2020). Calling for character education: Promoting moral integrity in early childhood education in Jordan. Early Child Development and Care, 190(5), 738–749. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2018.1489383
7. Boateng, G. O., Neilands, T. B., Frongillo, E. A., Melgar Quinonez, H. R., & Young, S. L. (2018). Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research. Frontiers in Public Health, 6, 149. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149
8. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Can I use TA? Should I use TA? Should I not use TA? Comparing reflexive thematic analysis and other pattern-based qualitative analytic approaches. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 21(1), 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1002/capr.12360
9. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and becoming a knowing researcher. International Journal of Transgender Health, 24(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/26895269.2022.2129597
10. Campbell, S., Greenwood, M., Prior, S., Shearer, T., Walkem, K., Young, S., Bywaters, D., & Walker, K. (2020). Purposive sampling: Complex or simple? Research case examples. Journal of Research in Nursing, 25(8), 652–661. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987120927206
11. Esper, T. (2024). Changing paradigms: A historical analysis of school governance. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy. https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2024.2396555
12. Ghamrawi, N. (2023). Toward Agenda 2030 in education: Policies and practices for effective school leadership. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 22, 325–347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-023-09341-8
13. Haniah, A. R., Aman, A., & Setiawan, R. (2020). Integration of strengthening of character education and higher order thinking skills in history learning. Journal of Education and Learning, 14(2), 183–190. https://doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v14i2.15010
14. Hart, P. (2022). Reinventing character education: The potential for participatory character education using MacIntyre’s ethics. Journal of Curriculum Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2021.1998640
15. Hennink, M., & Kaiser, B. N. (2022). Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: A systematic review of empirical tests. Social Science & Medicine, 292, 114523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114523
16. Henriksen, O. H., & Paulsen, J. M. (2021). Balancing trust and control through dialogue meetings in Norwegian school district governance. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 20, 65–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-020-09287-1
17. Hidayat, M., Rozak, R. W. A., Hakam, K. A., Kembara, M. D., & Parhan, M. (2022). Character education in Indonesia: How is it internalized and implemented in virtual learning? Jurnal Cakrawala Pendidikan, 41(1), 186–198. https://doi.org/10.21831/cp.v41i1.45920
18. Jeynes, W. H. (2019). A meta-analysis on the relationship between character education and student achievement and behavioral outcomes. Education and Urban Society, 51(1), 33–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124517747681
19. Kapelela, C. (2025). The politics of school governance in the context of accountability in school governance. Cogent Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2442251
20. Labib, K., Tijdink, J. K., Sijtsma, K., Bouter, L., Evans, N., & Widdershoven, G. (2024). How to combine rules and commitment in fostering research integrity? Accountability in Research, 31(4), 306–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2023.2191192
21. Legenzova, R., Gaigaliene, A., Rudyte, D., Skuncikiene, S., & Kazlauskiene, V. (2023). Assessment of public education expenditure efficiency across Lithuanian municipalities. Financial Internet Quarterly, 19(4), 63–79. https://doi.org/10.2478/fiqf-2023-0027
22. Liljenberg, M. (2025). Soft governance and notions of accountability. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2025.2516443
23. Luschei, T. F., & Jeong, D. W. (2021). School governance and student achievement: Cross-national evidence from the 2015 PISA. Educational Administration Quarterly, 57(3), 331–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X20936346
24. Mainuddin, M., Tobroni, T., & Nurhakim, M. (2023). Pemikiran pendidikan karakter Al Ghazali, Lawrence Kohlberg dan Thomas Lickona. Attadrib: Jurnal Pendidikan Guru Madrasah Ibtidaiyah, 6(2), 283–290. https://doi.org/10.54069/attadrib.v6i2.563
25. Mazzucato, M., & Ryan-Collins, J. (2022). Putting value creation back into public value: From market fixing to market shaping. Journal of Economic Policy Reform, 25(4), 345–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/17487870.2022.2053537
26. Mentini, L. (2024). Negotiating between the accountability and the innovation agenda in school governance. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy. https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2024.2385120
27. Meynhardt, T., & Jasinenko, A. (2021). Measuring public value: Scale development and construct validation. International Public Management Journal, 24(2), 222–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2020.1829763
28. Mifsud, D. (2025). A systematic review of school governance literature in the compulsory education sector. Journal of Educational Administration and History. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2025.2539791
29. O’Connor, C., & Joffe, H. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919899220
30. Oldham, P. (2025). Character education empirical research: A thematic review. Journal of Moral Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2025.2480185
31. Paschoalotto, M. A. C., Passador, J. L., Passador, C. S., & Oliveira, L. R. (2020). Local government performance: Evaluating efficiency, efficacy, and effectiveness at the public education sector. BAR – Brazilian Administration Review, 17(4), e190149. https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-7692bar2020190149
32. Rindrayani, S. R. (2020). The implementation of character education in Indonesia high school curriculum program. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(1), 304–312. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.080137
33. Shykhnenko, K., & Sbruieva, A. (2022). The code of conduct for research integrity, governance, and ethics in education in the USA, Europe, and Ukraine: Comparative analysis. European Journal of Educational Research, 11(4), 2195–2207. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.11.4.2195
34. Suryana, C., & Muhtar, T. (2022). Implementasi konsep pendidikan karakter Ki Hadjar Dewantara di sekolah dasar pada era digital. Jurnal Basicedu, 6(4), 6117–6131. https://doi.org/10.31004/basicedu.v6i4.3177