Categorization, Stereotypes, and Stigma in Policy Implementation: Conceptual Foundations for a Research Agenda

Abstract

Introduction: This article explores how the concepts of categorization, stereotypes, and stigma provide a lens for analyzing the implementation of public policies in Brazil, a country marked by profound social inequality. While both international and Brazilian scholarship on street-level bureaucracy recognize the role of bureaucratic discretion, these concepts remain underutilized in systematic analyses. The article aims to define these concepts, trace their applications in the literature, and propose a research agenda tailored to the Brazilian context. Materials and methods: This study presents a narrative literature review that brings together classical references (Durkheim, Goffman, Yanow, Lamont, Dovidio, among others), foundational studies on street-level bureaucracy (Lipsky, Maynard-Moody & Musheno, Tummers, Brodkin), and recent Brazilian contributions (Lotta, Pires, Cordeiro, Thomazinho, Marins, Costa). The article brings together key definitions, empirical findings, and identified gaps in the literature, developing conceptual syntheses and suggesting paths for future research. Results: The review indicates that: (i) categorization organizes reality cognitively by dividing citizens into official (administrative) and social (moral and cultural) categories, shaping their access to rights; (ii) stereotypes act as cognitive shortcuts or interpretive frames, guiding judgments about service users and potentially reinforcing social inequalities; and (iii) stigma devalues groups by contrasting real and idealized identities, producing both symbolic and material effects. The proposed research agenda calls for the need to examine the relationship between social and official categories, the mechanisms through which stereotypes are produced or resisted, and the effects of stigma on the life trajectories of public service users. Discussion: The study demonstrates that these concepts help us understand both material outcomes (such as unequal access to goods and services) and symbolic dimensions (including identity, status, and recognition) in policy implementation. The analysis makes the case for an intersectional approach that integrates race, gender, class, and other social markers to reveal how overlapping forms of oppression shape public policy implementation. The coexistence of deep inequality and universalist policies makes Brazil a particularly significant and revealing context for international debate.