Modern development economics emerged with the realization that poverty changes the set of options available to individuals. Poverty thus affects behavior, even if the decision maker is "neo-classical": unboundedly rational, forward looking, and internally consistent. The "homo economicus" at the core of neo-classical economics ("calculating, unemotional maximizer", Mul-lainathan and Thaler (2000)) would behave differently if he was poor than if he was rich. As-set market failures and preferences towards risk are sufficient to explain why asset ownership matters, and first-best transactions and investments may not always take place. The initial theoretical advances 1 opened a new empirical agenda to mainstream economists: The stake was not to accept or reject the hypothesis of "poor but efficient", and with it all the postulates of neo-classical economics; the task of empirical economics shifted to providing evidence for market inefficiencies, and the impact of economic policies to alleviate them. Thus, the paradigm "poor but neo-classical" helped define an empirical agenda and structure a vision of the world, even though it often remained implicit in empirical work. In turn, many of its predictions have been substantiated by the data. But there are also some fundamental facts for which this view of the world does not account. Using two classic examples, which have been very fertile ground for research in development economics — insurance and agricultural investment — I will try to explore how far this agenda led us, and what remains out of its reach.