Abstract
AbstractFrom 1977 to 1982, the Canadian government funded the installation of urea formaldehyde foam insulation (UFFI) in Canadian homes, then banned the product and subsequently paid homeowners who wished to have it removed. Then, in 1991, the case brought by the “victims” against the makers was found in Quebec Superior Court to be not proven. This article argues that the best way to understand this sequence of events is through a combination of decision theory, neo-institutionalism and postpluralism or neocorporatism.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
