the purpose of efficiency gains from economies of scale of jointly funding and providing certain services, such as garbage collection, policing, and fire protection. Numerous examples of special-purpose governments exist in which interlocal agreements between and among governmental units legitimize their activities. These agreements are negotiated periodically and, as a consequence of continuous oversight by participating governments, are expected to result in their becoming more efficient providers of services.

Rather than wholesale consolidation of a county's local governments, some advocates argue two advantages of a selective consolidation approach. First, the consolidated service can be provided at a more efficient level and a reduced cost than if each local government provided the service independently. And second, consolidating a single function rather than all functions is responsive to citizens' desires to maintain a separate political identity.

Suburban opposition to many of the regional proposals (e.g., city-county consolidations) is partly responsible for leading reformers to consider two-tier governments, consolidating some activities and not others, and to other proposals. Transportation improvement districts, sewer districts, utility districts, and other consolidated services have supplanted wholesale general government consolidations as politically viable regional solutions to service delivery needs (Burns, 1994). One of the most visible two-tier governments is Indiana's consolidation of a few Marion County services with those of the city of Indianapolis. Unigov, as it is called, did not require voter approval by the county's residents; rather, it was created by an act of the state legislature, controlled at the time by the Republican Party. The Democratic Party, which held leadership positions in the "old" Indianapolis council, now became a minority under Unigov. Their political base thus became diluted by suburban Republicans. Yet efficiency of service delivery, the principal reason for Unigov's creation in 1969, was proclaimed its major feat even as school districts and townships (which have relief and fire protection responsibilities) remained unconsolidated, as were the four cities with populations greater than 5,000 that were statutorily excluded from the consolidation. A total of 58 agencies were consolidated into 6 departments and, according to a former director of the Department of Metropolitan Development, "more services now are being delivered per dollar than before Unigov." Further, Unigov streamlined governmental structures and reduced the number of offices developers were required to visit before permits were issued, resulting in more economic development activity (Gorton, 1978).

Nearly a quarter-century after Unigov' s creation, Blomquist and Parks (1995) found that, since 1969, the wealthier suburbs have dominated the political landscape of the city-county government and that Unigov "gave suburban leaders access to the central-city base with which to pursue development projects chosen by them, not by city residents" (1995:53). Moreover, they contend that provision and production of "most local services" were unchanged. Their study, however, notes that residents of the "old" city, which still retains education and police