The question arises whether there is any fundamental difference between rural and urban poverty. It is frequently argued that rural poverty refers to a spatial unit rather than to the affliction of certain social groups or to specific circumstances of life. After all, there is women’s and children’s poverty, poverty due to unemployment, etc., in rural as well as in urban areas. Should investigations therefore focus on marginalised social groups and the main causes for social exclusion rather than on spatial categories? While there is much truth in this line of argumentation, it is equally true that the different socio-economic environment in rural as compared to urban areas can play a decisive role. Some poverty-causing features can only be found in rural areas, and others are of particular importance in those areas. The most important reasons for rural poverty turned out to be insufficient individual mobility, long-term unemployment, poor labour market conditions, low income levels, a lack of inexpensive housing, deficiencies in certain old-age pension schemes, a lack of educational and care institutions, a lack of equal opportunities for women in many respects, weak infrastructure and, last but not least, the threat of stigmatization due to a lack of anonymity in rural social systems. In addition to implementing appropriate measures, combating rural poverty and social exclusion requires a fundamental understanding of its specific structural causes and impacts. This would be an essential step away from stigmatization and towards sustainable social inclusion of poor and marginalised social groups, as well as a major challenge for all members of so-called civil society, including local authorities, NGOs and various associations.