because you have placed this in the economics section, I assume you mean economic future -- which makes this a very difficult question to answer because Latin America is composed of many different countries and thus of many different political systems and unique economic problems. It is also difficult to answer this question because there is no time frame specified. Still, I will try.
Many people say Latin America when what they actually mean is Mexico. Mexico is a member of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) which cost G.W. Bush Sr. his job when Perot took votes from him over NAFTA as a campaign issue by characterizing NAFTA as a tremendous sucking sound (of jobs leaving the USA).
Political expediency and economic reality, however, are seldom the same thing; and Perot catered to the immediate fears of an under-educated and over-reactive electorate. In the short term Perot was very incorrect, Mexico could not take American jobs in large numbers because they did not have the means of production needed to do so. We actually created American jobs by becoming part of NAFTA by creating the jobs needed to help provide Mexico a greater manufacturing base. Mid-term the answer is less clear. Mexico's increased manufacturing base will create increased numbers of middle-class citizens, which will thus increase the number of consumers for American products -- but it will also increase the number of those products that are made in Mexico by cheaper Mexican labor. Because we do not yet know what goods American companies will produce in Mexico or what Mexican consumption patterns will then be, we don't yet know if the mix will be in our favor or not, though I suspect it will be because almost all new increases in Mexican purchases of American products will likely be accounted for by the increased size of the Mexican middle class.
It should be remembered that there is something of a financial social conscience built into NAFTA that prevents Perot's giant sucking sound from becoming reality. It does not matter how much a company saves on production costs using Mexican labor if they destroy their American market by taking all the jobs to Mexico and reducing their American customer base by putting everyone in the unemployment line. This directly impacts a company's profits, but executive salaries are often influenced less by this than by stock prices, but when workers are unemployed they have to sell off their stocks, or cash in their 401K plans which are often heavily vested in the stock market, which decreases stock prices and thus negatively influenced executive salaries. Our decision makers have their own financial reasons for keeping as many American jobs American as possible. Still, our need for economically produced consumer goods will, over time, result in new investment in the Mexican manufacturing base. This in turn will create Mexican jobs. This in turn will increase the size of the Mexican middle class. This in turn leads to a new long-term result.
In the long term, the increased size of the Mexican middle class will create additional Mexican demand for American goods and services, which now often means technology. The incorporation of this technology in the Mexican economy will result in improvements in the average Mexican education which will in turn provide a new factor in the increase of the size of the Mexican middle class. This in turn will create another cycle of Mexican/American mutual benefits which will gradually see a decrease between the gap between Mexican and American incomes, which will shift some manufacturing jobs back to the USA, and some to other countries while some remain in Mexico. With this increase in Mexican income, Mexico becomes a new consumer market for the USA and everyone wins.
Other countries in Latin America are less well positioned geographically, culturally, politically, and economically to benefit from something similar to NAFTA and will take much longer to enjoy a similar relationship and similar benefits. Honduras provides one example of all these problems. Honduras is a country of approximately 6 million people and is located in Central America. This places it far enough away from the USA to impose transportation problems that would not only be expensive to overcome, but would also require the cooperation of countries that are competing with Honduras for parts of the American market. Culturally, Hondurans do not benefit from either the American standard of 12 years of education or the Mexican standard of 9 years. Free education in Honduras stops after 6 years, thus making it difficult for many Hondurans to learn the technologies associated with many factory jobs. Politically, Honduras is rife with corruption which makes it difficult to place international funds or investments there in safety or to ensure aid targeted to a specific purpose will actually serve that purpose.
To address the economic reasons it may be difficult to pull Honduras up to Mexico's level of competition, it must again be remembered that what is economically beneficial is not always politically expedient. This is especially evident in Honduras because the government is funded very largely on import duties that are invisible to the typical Honduran who ultimately pays them. This represents a substansial amount of money because almost everything Hondurans use, except fresh food, is imported.
Free trade is currently being discussed in Honduras, but it is very unlikely it will become reality. This is true because politicians very seldom do things that cause them to be elected out of office, and voting for free trade means that a Honduran politician would have to find somewhere else to come up with the money import and export taxes currently provide -- this means income, sales, or property taxes, all of which are visible taxes which the poor people of Honduras would both see and feel -- and very likely be angry about. They then vote out the people who voted in free trade and vote in people who have promised to undo the visible taxes that they see causing them hardship.
If we move further south, to a country heavily vested in the drug economy, such as Columbia, we again encounter the difference between economic reality and political expediency -- this time our own. If congress legalizes drugs they damage the Columbian economy by legalizing the manufacture and distribution of drugs here thus helping our economy via the creation of industry, although this may be more than offset by the loss of law-inforcement jobs, lawyer income and legal jobs, and correctional facility jobs. It also decimates gang activity by taking the money out of drugs, which funds much of gang activity and gang violence. All of this makes the methodist mothers in the bible belt angry because now they can see marijuana in the local pharmacy or liquor store. They and displaced members of the legal/criminal enforcement community vote for a change that does not help the people who cleaned up crime. This example is presented to show these matters are seldom simple and seldom have simple solutions.