Authoritative Abstractions

This article introduces the concept of authoritative abstractions in order to explain how formal rules and processed information become legitimate in decision-making environments. I argue that these abstractions become authoritative when their application is (1) vindicated by results and (2) justified on procedural grounds. In turn, their authority becomes contested when they are perceived as lacking one or the other. Moreover, I argue that the creation and application of authoritative abstractions must be understood against the backdrop of our ambivalence towards discretion and not some ill-defined notion of "informality." This is because both sources of authority rest on the idea that, by eliminating discretion, authoritative abstractions (1) reduce the cognitive effort required from decision-makers; and (2) create trust among distrusting individuals. Finally, I demonstrate the usefulness of this framework by comparing two ongoing attempts at institutionalizing new authoritative abstractions: preregistration plans in science reform and artificial intelligence in bureaucratic reform. These two examples further illustrate that new authoritative abstractions reshape the existing allocation of cognitive efforts, discretion, accountability, and trust in a division of labor.