Over the past thirty years, feminist economists have been at the forefront of work on household and intrahousehold economics. To a significant degree, their work has entered mainstream economics. This is surely a success story, both in the impact on academia and the broader implications for policy. This essay suggests that feminist economists should pause to reflect on the potential perils that accompany these successes. What gets lost when intrahousehold issues are folded into mainstream economic analyses? What is still missing in this literature? What still needs to be on the agenda for feminist economists working on issues around households? The essay highlights five potential perils: the focus on individuals, the narrow definition of households, the tendency for questions to be driven by available data and metrics, the possibility of collecting more data than scholars can use, and the need to include social norms and structural constraints.

HIGHLIGHTS

• Feminist economists have advanced the frontiers of household economics.

• Innovations in data collection help us understand women’s asset ownership and decision making.

• Women’s voices are increasingly captured in data collection.

• Mainstream approaches continue to focus on individuals and to define households narrowly.

• Much mainstream research still struggles to include social norms and structural constraints.

在过去的三十年里，女权主义经济学家一直处于家庭和家庭内部经济学工作的最前沿。在很大程度上，他们的工作已进入主流经济学。这无疑是一个成功的故事，无论是对学术界的影响还是对政策的更广泛影响。本文建议女权主义经济学家应该停下来反思伴随这些成功而来的潜在危险。当家庭内部问题被纳入主流经济分析时，会丢失什么？这些文献中还缺少什么？对于研究家庭问题的女权主义经济学家来说，议程上还需要什么？这篇文章强调了五个潜在的危险：对个人的关注、对家庭的狭隘定义、问题由可用数据和指标驱动的趋势、

强调

• 女权主义经济学家推进了家庭经济学的前沿。

• 数据收集方面的创新帮助我们了解女性的资产所有权和决策。

• 数据收集中越来越多地捕捉到女性的声音。

• 主流方法继续关注个人并狭隘地定义家庭。

• 许多主流研究仍在努力将社会规范和结构约束纳入其中。