본 연구에서는 위험유형을 위험문제 특징과 위험 대상집단의 특성 기준에 따라 네 가지 유형으로 구분하고, 이러한 위험유형에 해당하는 사례를 중심으로 정부 책임성을 분석하였다. 위험문제 특징은 위험문제의 불확실성 또는 예측불가능성 정도에 따라 구분하였으며, 위험 대상집단의 특성은 대상집단의 제한성 혹은 특정성으로 구분하였다. 그리고 위험유형에 따른 정부 책임성은 Mosher(1968)의 논의에 따라 객관적 책임성과 주관적 책임성으로 구분하여 살펴보았다. 본 연구에서 각각의 위험유형에 해당하는 사례를 분석한 결과 각 위험 유형에 있어서 요구되는 관료 책임성의 양태가 달라졌고, 위험에 대한 정부 책임성을 확보하는 방안(예: 위험 해결 거버넌스 구축)도 다르게 제시될 수 있었다. 이러한 연구 결과는 고도의 위험사회 속에서 위험에 대해 적극적으로 대응하는 효과적인 정부 책임성 확보 방안을 모색하는데 중요한 함의점을 제시할 수 있을 것이다.

This research categorized four risk typologies based on the criteria of risk problem characteristics and risk target group characteristics, and examined bureaucratic responsibility by focusing oncases relevant to each of the four risk typologies. The risk problem characteristics were categorized by the degree of uncertainty or unpredictability of the risk problem, and the risk target group characteristics were divided according to the degree of the limit or particularity of the target group. More specifically, based on the two responsibilities outlined by Mosher(1968), bureaucratic responsibility regarding risk typology was explained by objective responsibility and subjective responsibility. The first risk typology included the characteristics of low levels of uncertainty regarding the risk problem and a limited number of risk target groups, which could explain the Sewol ferry disaster and the screen door disaster in Guui Station. The second risk typology had the characteristics of high levels of uncertainty regarding the risk problem and a limited number of risk target groups, and explained the case of Fukushima Nuclear Accident and Mad Cow Case. The third risk typology included the characteristics of low levels of uncertainty regarding the risk problem and an unlimited number of risk target groups, which was related to car accidents. The final risk typology had the characteristics of high levels of uncertainty regarding the risk problem and an unlimited number of risk target groups, which was applicable to the cases of MERS-CoV and micro-dust. The results of the case studies indicated that the relevant bureaucratic responsibility depended on the traits of the four risk typologies. In addition, the four risk typologies could affect the relevant governance for a risk solution. These results provide us with some important implications for active and effective bureaucratic responsibility for risk in the highly risky society.