These are from Lauren E. Harrison, by way of Laura Seay. Both pieces are fascinating and easily worth reading in full.
It would seem that the story about how cell phones finance war rape is about 90% incorrect — 10% correct because it is in some sense true that rebel groups finance their crimes with mineral exports, 90% incorrect because the counterfactual does not involve reduced violence, like, at all.
For those interested in a more general discussion of the economic causes of civil conflict and their implications for policy, try Paul Collier’s 2006 paper “Economic Causes of Civil Conflict and Their Implications for Policy“. Collier argues that reliance on mineral export, low incomes, and slow (or negative) growth are major causes of civil war in developing countries, and that this relationship is indeed causal — and in Congo, you have all three. Regulating mineral exports from Congo doesn’t do much if anything to reduce dependence on said exports, but does make ordinary people poorer, so Collier (2006) would seem to predict that Dodd-Frank would if anything increase not decrease violence. (Now take another look at those maps)
I’m not saying the above maps amount to proof, or even evidence, that Dodd-Frank has fueled rather than reduced violence in Congo. But the absolute best you can say about the law so far is that there’s no evidence that it’s worked, and information consistent with the idea that it’s backfired.