China’s experience suggests that agricultural finance works best when different needs are funded through different institutions. In 1994, Beijing split its agricultural lending into two institutions—one commercial, one policy-driven—after mounting bad debt showed that bundling subsidized and market-rate loans together undermined credit discipline. The distinction reflects three overlapping priorities: improving farm production, building rural infrastructure, and protecting smallholder livelihoods. After the separation, the policy bank financed grain and oil reserves. In contrast, the commercial bank cleaned up its balance sheet, eventually scaling up to serve hundreds of millions of rural customers. Africa faces a similar challenge, but has never cleanly separated financing streams. While existing programs support parts of the system, they often lack coordination and scale. Experts argue that a dedicated African agricultural development bank—or several strong national institutions—could help close the gap, especially by working through cooperatives and farmer organizations.