> A lot of young Estonians went west to make money to send home, and that money counts towards GDP in France/England et cetera, not Estonia, even though it then was sent home.

If that money was sent home to Estonia, then it is getting measured in the impact it has on GDP. It shows up in, for one example, household consumption data.

Jane takes remittance money, goes into a shop in Tallinn, makes a purchase. Now that's part of GDP. Jane pays her rent with remittance money, now that's part of GDP.

That's exactly how it should work. Further, those remittances are a small minority share of all generated production by that person - leftover savings (which can then be shifted) after expenses necessary for existing in France/England.

Mexico as one famous example often leads the world in remittance figures, money coming from the US ($20-$30 billion per year). The impact of that remittance money shows up directly in the measured GDP figures of Mexico. It's still only 2% of the Mexico economy each year however.

If you look at Estonia's remittance numbers, you see a modest increase after the great recession. That increase difference would be a trivial share of their economic results, 0.3% or so. Total annual remittances today are higher now than they were in 2010-2013. Back then it was typically 200m-300m euro annually, or roughly 1% of GDP (nowhere near meaningfully denting the 14% decline figure referenced by the parent).