Of course it does.
As The Economist points out, textbook models of the economy and the labour market are subtly sexist and outdated. For example, 'Economics' as described in the book, 'Principles of Economics' is, "the study of men as they live and move and think in the ordinary business of life."
Yet, in the past few years it has been acknowledged that narrowing the gender pay gap has the potential to unlock extra economic growth and increase GDP, with many companies committing valuable time and resources to raise awareness around gender inequality in the workplace. As a women in business, it is extremely motivating to see these issues being addressed in the media and within company walls.
Economics as commonly practised often misses out another important element of inequality between the sexes: unpaid work. Women in the OECD, a club of rich countries, spend roughly 5% more time working than men. But they spend roughly twice as much time on unpaid work, and only two-thirds the time men do in paid work. By leaving unpaid work out of the national accounts, the feminist argument goes, economists not only diminish women’s contribution, but also gloss over the staggering inequality in who does it. Ignoring the feminist perspective is bad economics. The discipline aims to explain the allocation of scarce resources; it is bound to go wrong if it ignores the role that deep imbalances between men and women play in this allocation. As long as this inequality exists, there is space for feminist economics.