Because the education sector was not in the hands of state at a level as it used to be in old times, private institutions used education as a commodity and thus only the type of education that was desirable was promoted, and not the one which was in accordance with social sustainability. As a result, gradually we reached a point where education lost its value and attention and the same issue related to Peterborough is being discussed here.
The liberal economic approaches and ideas also failed to address the education problem properly. The liberal ideas focused on government intervention, trade unions, labor unions and controlled economic forces. Even though the government was able to control the educational institutions and policies regarding them, it failed to make them better and enlighten people about the relevance of the importance of education. This was because the main focus of the liberal economists was on controlling, sustaining, and empowering the labor class of the country. What they didn’t know was that only rightly educated skilled labor can empower himself appropriately (Carson, Thomas, & Hecht, 2005, pp. 16-20).
Radical economics, contrarily believes that if the market is left to itself, the market economy and the competitive world order will destroy itself, the environment and the global economy.
由于教育部门并不在状态的手在一个水平可以像在旧时代，私人机构以教育作为一种商品，因此只有类型的教育，是理想的晋升，并没有一个是与社会的可持续发展，根据。作为一个结果，我们达到了一个点，教育逐渐失去了它的价值，重视和相关的彼得伯勒同样的问题正在讨论在这里。
自由经济的方法和思路，也未能解决教育问题。自由思想聚焦于政府干预，工会，工会和控制的经济力量。即使政府能够控制教育机构和政策，对于他们来说，它没有使他们更好，让人们了解教育的重要性的相关性。这是因为自由主义经济学家的主要焦点是控制，维持，并赋予该国的劳动阶级。他们不知道的是，只有正确的教育技能劳动可以使自己适当（卡森，托马斯，与赫克特，2005，pp. 16-20）。
激进经济学，反之则认为，如果让市场本身，市场经济和竞争的世界秩序将毁灭自己，环境和全球经济。
