Oxfam: Peru’s Richest 1% Captured 42% of New Wealth From 2019 to 2025

Peru’s richest 1% captured 42% of all new wealth created between 2019 and 2025, according to an analysis by the nonprofit Oxfam. That is up from about 39% in 2000–2019, Oxfam said in an email to Al Jazeera.

The report, published on Tuesday, found that just 1.4% of new wealth in 2019–2025 went to the poorest 50% of the population. The findings raise questions about how Peru’s government is confronting deepening social divisions.

“Economic inequality in Peru has been persistently high for decades. When people feel that those who always win keep winning, that nothing changes and nothing can change, inequality starts to look like a natural order rather than an injustice,” said Alejandra Alayza, executive director of Oxfam in Peru. “That is a dangerous kind of fatalism, and we have to break it.”

Experts warn the trend undermines public trust in government and democratic institutions.

Oxfam worked with the Institute of Peruvian Studies, a Lima-based think tank, to publish the report this month on how Peruvians perceive inequality. The results showed that 84% of Peruvians believe their country is run by powerful interest groups that shape policy to benefit themselves. More than 75% also said corporations and wealthy individuals dodge their fair share of taxes.

The survey also found public support for action. About 70% of respondents want the government to do more to reduce inequality, while a majority feel inequality has limited access to services such as healthcare, employment, education and justice.

“The clear public support for action to reduce inequality does not allow us to be complacent,” Alayza said. “Inequality is not a natural force; it is created by political choices. And other choices can build a different Peru.”

Political turmoil

Rising inequality in Peru has coincided with a period of political chaos, especially in the presidency. A series of investigations, scandals and impeachments has given Peru nine presidents in the past 10 years. The latest, right-wing President Keiko Fujimori, was sworn in in July after a tight race marked by voting delays and bitter accusations between the leading candidates.

Experts believe powerful interest groups have found opportunities in this political turmoil.

“It’s a paradox. How can there be such turnover among elites while a relatively narrow political-criminal-business elite still holds so much power? I think both things are true in Peru,” Will Freeman, a fellow at the US-based Council on Foreign Relations, told Al Jazeera.

Part of the instability stems from conflict between the president and Peru’s powerful Congress, which can impeach executive leaders on grounds of “moral incapacity,” a vague term. According to analysts, repeated changes of leadership have weakened Peruvian democracy.

In December 2022, then-President Pedro Castillo announced he would illegally dissolve Congress in response to impeachment efforts. His subsequent removal and arrest sparked widespread protests. The government of his successor, Dina Boluarte, carried out a months-long crackdown that human rights groups say included numerous abuses but has seen almost no accountability.

In the years since, Peru’s government has also taken steps to weaken judicial oversight and shrink anti-corruption watchdogs. Freedom House, a nonprofit that rates political freedom worldwide, classified Peru as “free” in 2022 but downgraded it to “partly free” the following year after deadly clashes between security forces and protesters. In its 2026 report, Freedom House kept Peru at “partly free,” partly because of the denial of full political rights to some groups, including Indigenous people.

“Well-known corruption scandals have eroded public trust in government, and the weakening of judicial independence has affected the institutions that govern the country,” the organization said.

Powerful interest groups, both legal and illegal, have taken advantage of those changes.

“These groups are themselves unstable and flexible,” Freeman said. “However, I think Peruvians are right to conclude that, overall, they wield excessive influence to protect their own commercial interests or political power, rather than serving some kind of common good.”