POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT
Class meeting days: TBD
Class time: TBD
Location: TBD
Instructor: Ian Bailey
Office: 161 Warren Hall
Office Hours: TBD
Email: Idb6 {at} cornell.edu
Course Description:
This course engages with key theoretical lineages informing contemporary scholarship in
the political sociology of development. Using Karl Polanyi, Antonio Gramsci, and Michele
Foucault as theoretical pillars, this seminar focuses on different conceptualizations of power,
politics, and social change, and how these conceptualizations inform the study of development.
The objectives of the course are for students to 1) grasp the key theoretical and methodological
debates in the political sociology of development, 2) develop an historical and relational
understanding of development and power, and 3) assess and unpack dominant categories and
practices of development scholarship.
While the contemporary idea of development emerges out of the post-WWII conjuncture
in which projects to rebuild Europe and ‘develop’ (post-) colonial countries led to the
institutionalization of international development agencies, this course takes a longer historical
view of ‘development’, situating it within the transition to and development of capitalist
modernity. While we will interrogate ‘official’ development institutions, practices, discourses
and projects, students in this seminar will be expected to critically engage with broader
theoretical debates within political sociology (i.e. structure/agency, global/local, etc). The second
half of the course emphasizes food, agriculture, ecology, and social movements as they provide a
window into historical processes and relations of power undergirding contemporary development
practices and experiences.
Prerequisites and Course Rationale:
This course is not designed to provide a comprehensive or chronological review of
development theory. Students are expected to have a strong foundation in classical sociological
theory as well as a basic understanding of development theory prior to enrolling in this course.
This is an upper level graduate course, which builds on strong theoretical grounding of
the program’s core coursework, which includes classical theory, epistemologies, development
theory, and research methods. This course provides the opportunity to delve deeper into
contemporary debates and approaches to the study of development, broadly speaking. This
course, within the broader programmatic goals, should prepare students for their own dissertation
proposals and / or for fieldwork concerning issues of development.
Learning Objectives: students will be able to:
 identify and critically assess the main theoretical approaches to development




articulate their own theoretical position
describe their methodological approach vis-a-vis the study of development
integrate key concepts and ideas from class into their own research projects
develop a strong comprehension of contemporary development scholarship, and the
epistemological and theoretical underpinnings.
Course Requirements:
This seminar is discussion-based and requires the active participation of class members.
Out of courtesy to your colleagues, please thoroughly read all assigned articles. Additionally,
you will be required to submit a weekly one-page, single spaced, response paper (please post to
Blackboard 24 hours prior to our class meeting time). Your response papers should selectively
engage with one or two of the critical issues raised in the week’s readings. Please do not
summarize the articles. Lastly, you are required to write a 15-20 page analytic paper engaging
one of the central seminar themes (topics must be approved by the instructor).
Course Texts:
Polanyi, Karl. The Great Transformation
Mintz, Sidney. Sweetness and Power
Goldman, Michael. Imperial Nature
Elyachar, Julia. Markets of Dispossession
Tsing, Anna. Friction
J.K. Gibson Graham. Post-Capitalist Politics
Escobar, Arturo. Territories of Difference
Recommended Texts:
Sayer, Derek. 1992. Capitalism and Modernity: An Excursus on Marx and Weber.
Cooper, F. and Packard. 1997. International Development and the Social Sciences
Rist, Gilbert. 1997. The History of Development: from Western Origins to Global Faith.
McMichael, Philip (ed) 2010. Contesting Development: Critical struggles for social change.
Summary of assignments
There are three main assignments for this course. 1) weekly reading responses are due by 6pm
the day before class. I will provide three or four questions from which you can choose one to
write a concise, no more than 1pg, response. These responses will be discussed in class and will
be graded weekly with a -, , or +, indicating needs improvement, good, and excellent
respectively. 2) group presentation and discussion facilitation. At the beginning of each class
period two or more students will present a concise summary of the weeks readings, and present a
few critical questions for discussion. They will facilitate the class discussion for the first 45
minutes of class. 3) is a final paper in which you will write an essay in response to a set of
questions from which you will choose one. These questions are formulated to challenge students
to synthesize and put in conversation various themes in the course. Final papers should be no
longer than 25pgs and are due on the assigned final exam date (TBD).
Grading: Presentations will account for 15% of your overall course grade, participation
accounts for 25%, and the final paper accounts for 60% of your grade. Note that your
participation grade is assessed from both your contribution to class discussion and also your
written reading responses.
Format and procedures
Class time will be dedicated to discussion of the texts, arguments, and themes of the course.
Each week, two or more students will briefly summarize the substantive points of the week’s
readings, draw connections to previous readings and raise questions for discussion. These
presentations and student facilitation will constitute the first 45 minutes of class. The remainder
of class discussion will be focused around the reading questions and student responses. Students
are expected to read and be prepared to engage with other students’ responses. As a graduate
seminar, I encourage students to draw on their experiences in development and their research
interests to richen the conversations.
Expectations
As a discussion class, participation is absolutely necessary. The strength of this class requires
the full preparation of each student and a genuine desire to engage each other in debate and
discussion. That being said, it is essential that the classroom environment remains respectful and
open. We can disagree, but must do so with respectfulness and in honor of the class.
Academic Integrity:
All the work you submit in this course must have been written for this course and not another
and must originate with you in form and content with all contributory sources fully and
specifically acknowledged. Carefully read Cornell’s Code of Academic Integrity. The Code is
contained in The Essential Guide to Academic Integrity at Cornell, which is distributed to all
new students during orientation. In addition to the Code, the Guide includes Acknowledging the
Work of Others, Dealing with Online Sources, Working Collabora- tively, a list of online
resources, and tips to avoid cheating. You can view the Guide online at newstudentprograms.cornell.edu/AcademicIntegrity- Pamphlet.pdf. In this course, the normal
penalty for a violation of the code is an “F” for the term.
Class Schedule
Week 1. Introduction: Defining Development
The idea of development emerged from Enlightenment notions of progress in Western Europe.
However, conceptions of development crystallized during the colonial encounter where
Eurocentric ideas of progress, racial and gender hierarchy, and material wealth were forcefully
spread around the world. This week examines the historical production of development as a
relation of power and selective accounts of the effects of so-called development.
Film: Darwin’s Nightmare
Rist, Gilbert. 1997. “Definitions of Development.” Ch. 1 in The History of Development. Zed
Books, London, UK, pp 8-24.
Suggested:
-Hart, G. 2001. "Development critiques in the 1990s: culs de sac and promising paths." Progress
in Human Geography 25:649-658.
-Williams, R. 1983. Development. Pp. 102-4 in Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society.
London: Fontana Paperbacks.
-Crush, J. S. 1995. Introduction: Imagining Development. In Power of Development, Crush ed.
London: Routledge.
Week 2. Food, Power, and Development: Sweetness and Power
Mintz uses sugar as an analytical vehicle to reveal the historical relations and processes
constitutive of the ‘modern’ world. His analysis of inside and outside meanings of sugar helps to
unmask the interconnections of British industries, the English working class and colonial slave
plantations through capitalist development. For Mintz, the rise of sugar consumption is
inextricably linked to British imperialism and the ‘underdevelopment’ of colonial economies.
Mintz, Sidney. 1985. Sweetness and Power: The Place of Sugar in Modern History. Penguin
Books, NY.
Marx, Karl. 1867. “The Fetishism of Commodities and the Secret Thereof” in Capital, Vol 1
Suggested:
-Braudel, F. 1979. Civilization and Capitalism 15th-18th Century Vol I. “The Structures of
Everyday Life: The limits of the possible.” Harper & Row Publishers, NY.
-Daviron, B. and S. Ponte. 2006. The Coffee Paradox: Global Markets, Commodity Trade and
the Elusive Promise of Development. Zed Books.
-Talbot, J. 2004. Grounds for Agreement: The Political Economy of the Coffee Commodity
Chain. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
Week 3. States, Citizens, and Nation
Notions of the state, citizen, and nation are prominent analytical categories employed in
development scholarship. However, these categories are too often employed in theoretical
frameworks unscrupulously, risking the tendency to reify these categories in space and time.
This week’s readings challenge reified notions of states, citizens, and nations. They blur the
boundaries separating state, economy, and society by historicizing and politicizing their
formation.
Anderson, Benedict. 1983. Imagined Communities. Chs 1-3. Verso, NY.
Corrigan, Philip and Derek Sayer. 1985. “Introduction,” in The Great Arch. English State
Formation as Cultural Revolution, eds, Corrigan and Sayer.
Abrams, Philip. 1988. “Notes on the Difficulty of Studying the State.” Journal of Historical
Sociology, 1:1 pp. 58-89.
Wallerstein, Immanuel. 2001. Unthinking Social Science: The Limits of Nineteenth-Century
Paradigms 2nd ed. Ch. 5: “Societal Development, or Development of the World-System.”
Scott, James C. 1998. Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human
Condition Have Failed. Intro, 1-8; and Ch. 3: “Authoritarian High Modernism,” 87-103.
Suggested:
-Holston, J. 1998. Spaces of Insurgent Citizenship. In L. Sandercock (Ed.), Making the Invisible
Visible: A Multicultural Planning History. UC Press: Berkeley.
-Souza, M. 2006. “Together with the state, despite the state, against the state: Social movements
as ‘critical urban planning’ agents.” City, 10(3).
Week 4. The Great Transformation: Politicizing the Market Society
In Polanyi’s classic book, he chronicles the rise and fall of 19th Century liberalism exposing the
violent implementation of free market capitalism and the political backlash to it. Importantly, he
de-naturalizes the ‘market’ by illuminating the violent social and ecological upheaval caused by
the commodification of land, labor, and money (what he terms fictitious commodities).
However, Polanyi argued that the disembedding tendencies of free market capitalist development
provoked a broad-based counter-movement attempting to embed the economy in society, themes
we will return to later in the course.
Polanyi, Karl. 2001 [1944]. The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of
Our Times. Beacon Press, NY.
Abrams, Philip. 1982. "Explaining Events: A Problem of Method." Pp. 190-226 in Historical
Sociology. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Suggested:
- Lacher, Hannes. 1999. “Embedded Liberalism, Disembedded Markets: Reconceptualising the
Pax Americana,” New Political Economy 4, 3.
Week 5. Markets of Dispossession: Empowerment debt and Neoliberal disembedding
Elyachar’s critical analysis of micro credit projects in Cairo arguably builds upon, yet supersedes
Polanyi’s analysis of 19th Century liberal disembedding at a moment of neoliberal hegemony.
Similarly, Elyachar’s argument that micro credit projects attempt to commodify the cultural
practices of the poor into ‘social capital’ resembles Polanyi’s discussion of fictitious
commodification. In what ways, and how, does Elyachar depart from Polanyi? How do they
conceptualize development and power? And how are these conceptualizations reflective of the
historical conjunctures in which they analyzed development?
Julia Elyachar. 2005. Markets of Dispossession. NGOs, Economic Development, and the State in
Cairo. Duke University Press, Durham, NC.
Marx, Karl. 1859. A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. Progress Pub, Moscow.
Suggested:
-Marx, Karl. 1858. “The method of Political Economy.” In The Gundrisse.
-Timothy Mitchell, The Rule of Experts, Chapter 7: “The Object of Development,” 209-243.
-Harvey, David. 2003. The New Imperialism. Oxford University Press.
Week 6. Hegemony, Nature, and Development
Through his concept of hegemony, Gramsci incorporated ideological and cultural forms of
domination and rule into the arena of power and politics. Goldman employs Gramsci’s concept
of hegemony to explore the contradictions of the ‘greening’ of the World Bank. How do
particular ideas, practices, and policies become hegemonic such that they become ‘common
sense’? In what ways, and how, does the World Bank’s development discourse and knowledge
production conceal their underlying agenda? How does the idea of hegemony reconstitute our
understanding of power and development?
Goldman, Michael. 2005. Imperial Nature: The World Bank and Struggles for Social Justice in
the age of globalization. Yale University Press, New Haven.
Gramsci, A. 1971. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. International Publishers. (Selections)
Suggested:
-Laclau, E. and C. Mouffe. 1985. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical
Democratic Politics. Verso, NY. Ch. 1. “Hegemony: the genealogy of a concept” and
Ch. 4 “Hegemony and Radical Democracy”
- Burawoy, M. 2003. “For a Sociological Marxism: The Complementary Convergence of
Antonio Gramsci and Karl Polanyi,’ Politics & Society 31, 2.
- Cox, R. 1983. “Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in Method,”
Millennium: Journal of International Studies 12, 2.
Week 7. The Micro Politics of Development: Governmentality and Power/Knowledge
Foucault’s writings on discourse, governmentality, and power/knowledge radically blurred and
multiplied the way scholars conceptualized power and relations of rule. While Gramsci
discussed how the struggle for ideological control was a key mechanism of domination, Foucault
suggested that power can be internalized through moral regulation. His concept of
governmentality elaborates the complex forms and relations of domination in modern society,
and the strategies and practices by which governments create subjects. Building off this diffused
notion of power, Li and Agrawal apply governmentality to the study of development.
Foucault, M. 1980. "Truth and Power." Pp. 109-133, Ch 6 in Power/Knowledge: Selected
Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977, edited by M. Foucault. Pantheon Books, NY.
Foucault, M. 1991. "Politics and the Study of Discourse." Pp. 53-72 in The Foucault Effect:
Studies in Governmentality, edited by G. Burchell, C. Gordon, and P. Miller. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Foucault, M. 1991. “Governmentality,” in The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality,
edited by G. Burchell, C. Gordon and P. Miller. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Li, Tania. 2007. The Will To Improve: Governmentality, Development, and the Practice of
Politics. Ch. 1 Introduction. Duke University Press, Durham, NC.
Argrawal, Arjun. 2005. Environmentality: Technologies of Government and the Making of
Subjects. Chs. 1 and 7. Duke University Press, Durham, NC.
Suggested:
-Foucault, M. 1972. "Science and Knowledge." Pp. 178-195, Ch 6, in The Archaeology of
Knowledge & the Discourse on Language, ed. by M. Foucault. Pantheon Books, NY.
-Mitchell, Timothy. 2002. The Rule of Experts. Chs 1, 3, 7 and 9. UC Press, CA.
Week 8. Politicizing Development Discourse
Building on Foucault, this set of authors interrogate development discourses. As they
demonstrate, development discourses serve to legitimize the development industry and
interventions through a-historical and depoliticized framings of development.
Hall, Stuart. 1996. “The West and the Rest: Discourse and Power,” in S. Hall et al. (eds.)
Introduction to Modern Societies, Blackwell Pub. NY, pp. 185-225.
Ferguson, James. 1994. The Anti-Politics Machine: Development, Depoliticization, and
Bureaucratic Power in Lesotho, Ch 2: “Conceptual apparatus: the constitution of ‘the
object of development” pp. 25-73.
Cooper, Frederick. 1997. “Modernizing Bureaucrats, Backward Africans and the Development
Concept,” in F. Cooper and R. Packard (eds.), International Development and the Social
Sciences: Essays in the History and Politics of Knowledge. Pp. 64-92.
Santos, Boaventura de Sousa and César A. Rodriguez-Garavito. 2006. “Introduction: Expanding
the Economic Canon and Searching for Alternatives to Neoliberal Globalization,” in
Another Production is Possible: Beyond the Capitalist Canon, Santos (eds). Verso, NY.
Suggested:
-Cooper, F. and R. Packard, International Development and the Social Sciences: Ch 1 Intro.
Week 9. Re-Centering Food and Agriculture: Contesting Development Narratives
Historical narratives of development have devalued agrarian livelihoods as anachronistic in the
modern world. However, the global food crisis of 2008 refocused the development industry’s
attention on agriculture and food. Meanwhile, agrarian social movements are reframing food
and agriculture around the concept of food sovereignty. The competing visions of food and
agriculture reveal the material and epistemic crises of development. This set of readings
analyzes contemporary discourses and narratives of development and the politics of reframing
agriculture in development discourse.
Finnemore, Martha. 1997. “Redefining Development at the World Bank.” In Cooper, F. and R.
Packard (eds) International Development and the Social Sciences. UC Press, CA.
McMichael, Philip. 2009. “Banking on Agriculture: A Review of the World Development
Report 2008.” Journal of Agrarian Change, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 235-246.
Amanor, Kojo Sebastian. 2009. “Global Food Chains, African Smallholders and World Bank
Governance.” Journal of Agrarian Change, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 247–262.
Duncan, Colin. 1996. The Centrality of Agriculture. Between Humankind and the Rest of Nature.
Ch. 1: ‘Agriculture as the problem: replacing the economy in nature and society.’
Friedmann, Harriet. 2000. “What on Earth is the Modern World-System? Food-Getting
and Territory in the Modern Era and Beyond,” Journal of World-Systems Research VI
(2):480-515.
Weis, Tony. 2007. The Global Food Economy. The Battle for the Future of Farming. Conclusion
Suggested:
-Symposium on the World Development Report 2008, Journal of Agrarian Change, 2009, 9:2.
-Marcel Mazoyer and Laurence Roudart. 2006. A History of World Agriculture. From the
Neolithic age to the current crisis.
-Jack Kloppenburg. 2004. First the Seed: The Political Economy of Plant Biotechnology.
-Van der Ploeg, Jan Douwe. 2008. The new Peasantries. Earthscan, London, UK.
Week 10. Food, Power, and Development: Food Regimes
Friedmann and McMichael pioneered food regimes analysis as a way to ‘historicize the global
food economy’ and to ‘highlight the central role of food and agriculture in the global political
economy.’ As such, food regime analysis uses food as a lens into global political economic
processes and power relations, highlighting moments of crisis and transition as expressed
through global food relations.
Friedmann, Harriet and Philip McMichael. 1989. “Agriculture and the State System. The rise and
decline of national agricultures, 1870 to the Present,” Sociologia Ruralis 29(2):93-117.
Friedmann, Harriet. 1993. “International political economy of food: a global crisis,” New Left
Review 197: 29-57.
Araghi, Farshad. 2003. “Food regimes and the production of value: some methodological
issues.” Journal of Peasant Studies 30(2):41-70.
Friedmann, Harriet. 2005. “From colonialism to green capitalism: social movements and
emergence of food regimes.” In F.H. Buttel and P. McMichael, eds, New Directions in
the Sociology of Global Development.
McMichael, Philip. 2005. “Global development and the corporate food regime.” In F.H. Buttel
and P. McMichael, eds, New Directions in the Sociology of Global Development.
Suggested:
-Special symposium on Food Regimes. 2009. Agriculture and Human Values, Vol. 4.
-Philip McMichael. 2009. “A food regime genealogy,” Journal of Peasant Studies
36(1):139-170.
Week 11. Rethinking Urban/rural linkages: metabolic relations and development…
John Bellamy Foster’s ground-breaking article on Marx’s theory of metabolic rift refocused
attention on the spatio-temporal rupture between capitalist production and distribution and
natural/ecological cycles. The theory of metabolic rift has become a prominent approach to
understanding contemporary social and ecological crises. In what ways, and how does the theory
of metabolic rift reformulate and/or transcend the urban/rural binary? How might we rethink
development through the lens of metabolic relationships? This weeks readings explicitly or
implicitly deal with the deepening of the metabolic rift and strategies for mending the metabolic
rift.
Foster, John Bellamy. 1999. “Marx’s Theory of Metabolic Rift: Classical Foundations for
Environmental Sociology,” American Journal of Sociology 105, 366-405.
Arraghi, Farshad. 2000. “The Great Global Enclosure of Our Times,” in Magdoff et al, Hungry
for Profit: The Agribusiness Threat to Farmers, Food and Environment, 145-160.
Wittman, Hannah. 2009. “Reworking the metabolic rift: La Vía Campesina, agrarian citizenship,
and food sovereignty.” Journal of Peasant Studies, 36:4, pp. 819-840.
Harvey, David. 1996. “Possible Urban Worlds.” In Justice, Nature & the Geography of
Difference. Blackwell publishing, Oxford, UK.
Kinna, Ruth. 2007. “Fields of Vision: Kropotkin and Revolutionary Change.” Project Muse:
SubStance, Issue 113 (Volume 36, Number 2) pp. 67-86.
Suggested:
-Bunker, S. 1985. Underdeveloping the Amazon. University of Chicago Press, IL.
-Cronon, W. 1991. Nature’s Metropolis. W.W. Norton & Company, NY
-Walker, Richard. 2004. The Conquest of Bread. The New Press, NY.
-Van der Ploeg, Jan Douwe. 2008. The new Peasantries. Earthscan, London, UK.
-Vasudevan, A., C. McFarlane, and A. Jeffrey. 2008. “Spaces of Enclosure.” Geoforum, 39.
Week 12. Relocalization I: Alternative Economies, Production, and Food Systems
Gibson-Graham challenge totalizing representations of capitalism and globalization. Shifting
ontological perspective, they argue, reveals a diversity of economic activity and opens spaces for
alternative futures. Their theory of action consists of a ‘politics of language (challenging
totalizing representations), of the subject (reconstituting post-capitalist subjectivities), and of
collective action (a politics of place and difference)’. Food system localization projects are
illustrative of Gibson-Grahams idea of ‘building community economies,’ including the racial,
gender, and class politics of place (and food). How does Gibson-Graham’s notion of postcapitalist politics reframe the meaning and goals of development? How might Gibson-Graham’s
reformulation of politics inform food system localization projects?
Gibson-Graham, J.K. 2006. A Postcapitalist Politics. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota
Press. Introduction, Chs. 2, 4, 6, and 7.
Hinrichs, Claire C. 2003. “The practice and politics of food system localization.” Journal of
Rural Studies 19: 33–45.
Fonte, Maria. 2008. “Knowledge, Food and Place: A Way of Producing, a Way of Knowing,”
Sociologia Ruralis 48(3): 201-222.
Allen, Patricia. 2010. “Realizing justice in local food systems.” Cambridge Journal of Regions,
Economy and Society 3: 295–308
Gottlieb, Robert and Anupama Joshi. 2010. “Growing Justice.” In Food Justice. MIT Press.
Suggested readings on the politics of urban space:
-Lefebvre, H. 1996. The Right to the City. In E. Kofman and E. Lebas (eds.), Writings on Cities
by Henri Lefebvre. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishing. Pp. 147-159.
-Purcell, M. 2002. Excavating Lefebvre: The right to the city and its urban politics of the
inhabitant. GeoJournal, 58: 99–108.
-Harvey, D. 2008. The Right to the City. New Left Review, 53: 24-39.
-Holder, J. B. and T. Flessas. 2008. “Emerging Commons.” Social & Legal Studies, 17(3).
Week 13. Global/Local I: Global Connections and Social Movements
The last two week’s readings problematize the global/local binary through analyses of global
connections, place-based politics, and epistemologies of difference. Herein we explore how the
global and local are mutually constituted through cultural processes such as the travel and ‘touch
down’ of universal narratives, the production of political subjectivities premised on the
valorization of difference, and movements of domination, resistance, and opposition. Though
capitalism figures prominently in both Tsing and Escobar’s ethnographic accounts of
development, the authors go to great lengths to demonstrate how capitalist development is
neither a totalizing nor uniform process. Santos et al build on this premise by illuminating the
ways in which alternative epistemologies premised on difference pose challenges to capitalist
social relations and possibilities for global justice and emancipation.
Tsing, Anna. 2005. Friction: An Ethnography of Global Connection. Princeton University Press.
Preface, introduction, ch. 7, and Coda.
Escobar, Arturo. 2008. Territories of Difference: Place, Movements, Life, Redes. Duke
University Press. introduction, chs. 2, 3, 6 (capital, nature, networks).
Suggested:
-Escobar, Arturo. 1992. “Imagining a Post-Development Era? Critical Thought, Development
and Social Movements.” Social Text, No 31/32, pp 20-56.
Week 14. Global/Local II: Territories of Difference
Escobar, Arturo. 2008. Territories of Difference: Place, Movements, Life, Redes. Duke
University Press. Chs. 1, 4, and 5 and conclusion (place, development, identity).
Santos, Boaventura de Sousa, J. A. Nunes, and M. P. Meneses. 2007. “Introduction: Opening Up
the Canon of Knowledge and Recognition of Difference.” In Another Knowledge is
Possible. Verso, NY.
Suggested:
-Martinez-Alier, J. 2000. Environmentalism of the Poor.