How does Bolivia maintain its high economic growth and the highest direct foreign investment in South America, despite its economic policies? Nationalization of industries has always been anathema to foreign investment yet Bolivia now has the highest foreign direct investment despite Evo Morales' policies. Also not that it is always bad but in many countries like the Philippines, Korea, Peru and Chile, it was nationalization that stagnated their economies and it was privatization that saved them from stagnation and unlocked huge economic growth. In my simple understanding, this is because privatization removes the corruption inherent in nationalized industries as well as attract foreign investors that provide new capital. President Evo Morales' economic policies were the opposite of this. I even remember reading  that he had a confrontation with foreign investors threatening to pull out of Bolivia because of his policies. Yet somehow and someway he was not only able to keep foreign investment but he was also able to increase it. Bolivian growth also experience widespread growth. This is in widespread contrast with Venezuela where similar policies under Chavez and Maduro is currently causing an economic crisis. How is Evo Morales and Bolivia achieving this growth contrary to Neoliberal and free market capitalism teaching?
This is what I gathered during my research of this topic:

Evo Morales' policies are more centered on economy than they appear. See, for example, an article from May 2017, which praises them for being fiscaly conservative and austere, despite socialist and anti-imperialist rhetoric.


  Even though Evo Morales is a self-described socialist, and (in theory)
  one of the most left-wing of Latin America’s Bolivarian wave, it was a
  shock when the Bolivian president embraced fiscal discipline.
  
  While the Morales government nationalized several oil and gas
  companies, they simultaneously developed a good enough relationship
  with the private sector. Overall, the government has been surprisingly
  fiscally conservative.
  
  Institutions like the IMF and World Bank, of which Morales is a strong
  critic, have praised his austerity.


[...]


  Even if Morales rails against neoliberalism, he is not moving the
  country toward a Marxist revolution. The fact is that he understands
  the role of the market in improving people’s lives, especially
  indigenous groups, since they are the most involved in informal
  economic activities.


[...]


  In general, Morales has a better relationship with both business
  leaders and social movements than other governments in the region
  could dream of, proving he’s not as far left as many might think.


It should be mentioned, however, that the public spending increased over 750% from 2006 to 2017 (source). The crucial difference is that this effect was not solely dependent on the price of oil, as in case of Venezuela, and the budget was more balanced (Venezuela deficit grew up to nearly 20% of GDP in 2014, prior to drop in oil prices), but with other factors, like:


investments in increase in production from natural gas (hydrocarbon gas, polyethylene),
social bonds,
strengthening internal demand (increase in internal consumption).


On the other hand, Bolivia's growth of GDP is not that signifficant. In fact, the four quarters average of GDP growth does not exeede 2,5% (it dropped below 0% after 2015) (source). Bolivia's economy is much smaller than Peru and Chile (according to CIA World Factbook, Bolivia GDP is about 83 bln USD, while Peru GDP is 424 bln USD, Chile is 452 bln USD), so there is some kind of 'base effect' as regards measuring the GDP growth in relative values

All in all, the last ten years were preety good for the global economy. In the age of low interest rates the capital was looking for developing countries like Bolivia to invest in. The real test for the Bolivia economy will come, when the bull market ends.