  Consider a coordination game played on a network, where agents prefer taking
actions closer to those of their neighbors and to their own ideal points in
action space. We explore how the welfare outcomes of a coordination game depend
on network structure and the distribution of ideal points throughout the
network. To this end, we imagine a benevolent or adversarial planner who
intervenes, at a cost, to change ideal points in order to maximize or minimize
utilitarian welfare subject to a constraint. A complete characterization of
optimal interventions is obtained by decomposing interventions into principal
components of the network's adjacency matrix. Welfare is most sensitive to
interventions proportional to the last principal component, which focus on
local disagreement. A welfare-maximizing planner optimally works to reduce
local disagreement, bringing the ideal points of neighbors closer together,
whereas a malevolent adversary optimally drives neighbors' ideal points apart
to decrease welfare. Such welfare-maximizing/minimizing interventions are very
different from ones that would be done to change some traditional measures of
discord, such as the cross-sectional variation of equilibrium actions. In fact,
an adversary sowing disagreement to maximize her impact on welfare will
minimize her impact on global variation in equilibrium actions, underscoring a
tension between improving welfare and increasing global cohesion of equilibrium
behavior.
