In Peru, a country with an astonishing variety of different ecological areas, with 84 different climate zones and landscapes, with rainforests, high mountain ranges and dry deserts, the geographical context may not be all that matters, but it could be very significant in explaining regional variations in income and poverty. The major question this paper tries to answer is: what role do geographic variables, both natural and manmade, play in explaining per capita expenditure differentials across regions within Peru? How have these influences changed over time, through what channels have they been transmitted, and has access to private and public assets compensated for the effects of an adverse geography? We have shown that what seem to be sizeable geographic differences in poverty rates in Peru can be almost fully explained when one takes into account the spatial concentration of households with readily observable non-geographic characteristics, in particular public and private assets. In other words, the same observationally equivalent household has a similar expenditure level in one place as another with different geographic characteristics such as altitude or temperature. This does not mean, however, that geography is not important but that its influence on poverty, expenditure level and growth differential comes about through a spatially uneven provision of public infrastructure…/…