It's become a near-guarantee that politicians running for office promise to reform government by eliminating "waste, fraud and abuse," along with corruption. Once elected, they usually realize this is nearly impossible and nothing happens.

Government reform, however, isn't always about corruption or wasteful spending. Sometimes, government's very structure impedes efficiency and effectiveness.

For Pennsylvania, this is precisely the case.

Since the decline of the state's industrial economy in the early 20th century, Pennsylvania's urban population has shrunk significantly. Between 1930 and 2000, Pittsburgh's population decreased by 50 percent, Harrisburg's by 38 percent and Philadelphia's by 22 percent.

People moved out and urban sprawl began. According to the Department of Economic and Community Development, Pennsylvania's population grew by only 3.4 percent during the 1990s while the number of developed acres grew by 53.6 percent. For every person added to Pennsylvania's population during that decade, 1.6 more acres of land were developed.

One outcome is that Pennsylvania now has more than 3,100 units of local government: 67 counties, 56 cities, 961 boroughs, one incorporated town, 1,547 townships and 501 school districts. A 2006 report by the Pennsylvania State Planning Board proclaimed, "Many local governments provide efficient and responsive services and infrastructure, but some do not."

Meanwhile, according to DECD deputy secretary Ken Klothenment, "Pennsylvania municipalities are furloughing employees, cutting services or taking other drastic measures to pay their bills. If they shared services, the financial pain would not be so great."

Unfortunately, legal language in Pennsylvania's Intergovernmental Cooperation Law is often confusing. The law does not explicitly grant municipal authorities the right to enter into agreements with other municipalities to provide services. Furthermore, determining which government codes apply to joint ventures between local governments is complicated and often discourages intergovernmental cooperation to provide basic services such as police and fire protection or tax collection.

The County Code also prohibits county governments from absorbing many responsibilities of municipalities, even when requested to do so. It dictates that they can accept responsibility only for health and human services, county courts and corrections, elections, record keeping, emergency management and real estate valuation.

The DECD has taken steps to help local governments cooperate with one another through the Shared Municipal Services Program, which provides grants of $10,000 to $25,000 to help fund shared services.

Of course, radical structural reform would do the most to improve efficiency. John E. Murray Jr., chancellor and professor of law at Duquesne University, has written that Pittsburgh's budget woes would disappear if officials permanently eliminate "duplicative functions between the city and Allegheny County governments." Unfortunately, political limitations and bureaucratic resistance make this option unlikely.

In one successful attempt at reform nearly a decade ago, Allegheny County citizens elected to implement home-rule government by eliminating the three-commissioner system and replacing it with a county executive, 15-member council and an appointed county manager. The change has significantly improved the operation of the county government, but more importantly signaled the importance of sometimes altering the structure of governments.

Permitting and encouraging local governments to work collaboratively is a winning solution for Pennsylvania. It can increase government efficacy, decrease waste and help struggling communities get back on their feet.

Cartoonist Rob Rogers does "Rob's Rough," an early look at his work and his creative process, exclusively at PG+, a members-only web site of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Our introduction to PG+ gives you all the details.