Governing a large state is frequently likened to cooking a small fish, a task demanding light touch and careful proportion. In 1994, China applied this logic to its financial sector by splitting agricultural credit into two distinct streams. Commercial lending, which included services for smallholder farmers, remained with the Agricultural Bank of China (ABC). Meanwhile, policy-driven lending was carved out into a new entity: the Agricultural Development Bank (ADB). This structural change was not merely administrative; it reflected a deeper shift in how the state viewed the agricultural sector. The government recognized that agriculture was not a single problem, but a collection of overlapping challenges requiring different financial tools.
Chinese policymakers often summarize this distinction using the concept of the “three rurals.” First, agriculture as an industry, focusing on raising output and modernizing production. Second, the rural area as a physical space, where roads, irrigation, and storage are public goods needing patient capital. Third, farmers as people, a human question involving survival, income, and rights. Each of these dimensions demands different instruments, risk pricing, and repayment horizons. Treating them as one monolithic issue creates inefficiencies that no single institution can efficiently manage.
The Cost of Bundled Risks
Before the 1994 split, the ABC handled nearly all rural finance. Reconstituted in 1979, the bank managed policy and commercial operations side by side. By the early 1990s, the cost of this hybrid model became difficult to ignore. Many loans for grain, cotton, and poverty alleviation were lent in bulk to township enterprises or farmers, but many could not be recovered upon maturity. These debts gradually accumulated, eroding the bank’s capital. Subsidized policy rates clashed with market-priced deposits, creating consistent losses.
Furthermore, loans approved for political reasons rather than financial viability weakened credit discipline across the board. By the mid-to-late 1990s, the ABC’s non-performing loan ratio exceeded 30%, and in some branches, it surpassed 40%. This outcome was not surprising. A loan for grain reserves and a loan for a farmer’s seed and fertilizer carry different risk profiles and repayment cycles. When bundled together, the risks bleed into each other, making it impossible to price either accurately.
The 1994 split delivered measurable results. By 2003, the new ADB carried an $83bn loan book. It financed that year’s state purchase of 90 million tonnes of grain and 600,000 tonnes of edible oil. Meanwhile, the ABC worked through its inherited bad debts. In 2008, the bank shed roughly 400bn yuan in non-performing loans and received a $19bn capital injection. This was before its 2010 listing, which was, at the time, the world’s largest IPO, all while still serving close to 590m rural customers.
Read Also: AI and Robots to Reshape Africa’s Textile Industry
Africa’s Unresolved Financing Gap
Africa faces this same three-part problem today, but at a different scale. Recent estimates put the continent’s annual agricultural financing gap at roughly $100bn, as the food import bill continues to climb. Agriculture contributes close to 30% of Africa’s GDP yet captures less than 5% of bank lending. Smallholders, who grow roughly 80% of the continent’s food, are almost always locked out of formal finance. The lack of land titles, records, or organization prevents them from accessing standard credit products.
Development finance institutions often hesitate to invest in greenfield agricultural transformation projects under $5m, regardless of how strong the business case may be. Yet, pledges to “invest more in agriculture” are common on the continent. These pledges can mean anything from a smallholder credit line to a road or a fertilizer subsidy. These initiatives often land in the same budget line and bank window, leaving each under-resourced. Traditional donors often exacerbate these issues by pushing a focus on certain crops or seed distribution, without targeting the rest of the system.
China’s experience suggests that failing to separate these three problems causes resources to scatter. It appears to cover everything while properly feeding nothing. The 1994 move was a return to specialization: different investments need different institutions, products, and appetites for risk. If African policymakers do not adopt a similar structural separation, the current fragmented approach may continue to fail to address the core bottlenecks in rural economic development.
Existing Structures and Future Paths
Africa has been running a version of this split, to a degree. Each effort has produced real results. However, the challenge is that many are focused on one part of the system. They do not yet operate as a unified financial architecture that addresses the full spectrum of rural needs.
Many of these efforts run into constraints set by the global financial architecture and banking rules with colonial origins. These include tight fiscal space, IMF discipline requirements, customary land tenure that resists conventional collateral, and currency volatility. On top of this, there is climate change and, in many regions, instability. China uses two banks, one commercial and one policy-driven. In Africa, policy is still mostly run through government agencies or folded into a multilateral bank’s broader portfolio. It is rarely carried by its own standalone, state-backed institution with its own capital pool.
