A country can be thinkable in terms of the stage of its economic development, as classified by GCI due to Porter (1990). To answer your question more information is needed w.r.t. your target.

I suggest you focus on the following first, before defaulting on the beliefs that just because a market is "emerging", it would necessarily operate under a vastly different economic dynamics:

1. Understand the sources of variations (i.e. volatilities) in prices, costs, demand, and the factors driving those volatilities. Refer to Cox-Ross-Rubinstein's binomial tree as possible tool to understand the effects of volatilities on valuation.

2. Understand the structure of the market - where market dominance is often reinforced by regulations or market inefficiencies. Refer to Grenadier's work on the effects of market structure on option premium.

3. Understand how economic cycles influence returns - often the comparisons are obscured when the influence on returns on invested capital are not explicitly evaluated. Rappapport and Stern Stewart has done some work on residual income which they refer to as economic value added (EVA). This can be plotted across a full economic cycle to see how they vary. 

4. Understand how competitors' actions influence the firm's value - Lenos Trigeorgis has done extensive work on this under the body of works referred to as option games.

Trust this helps.

These answers are very good.

In addition I would urge you to think clearly about the connection between the theory you are contributing to and the performance measure you select.  Performance is one most scrutinized measures in management research (Miller, Washburn, & Glick, 2013; Sørensen & Chang, 2006). Venture performance is even more scrutinized because many of the conventional performance measures such as stock market returns or returns on assets, are not relevant or obtainable for firms in emerging countries. Profit - as a measurement - in particular is a very manipulated num er that is often affected by ocal expectations and regulations such as tax laws. Researchers often rely instead on more generalized measures such as  survival, growth, profitability, and milestones (i.e., reaching positive cash flow , first sale, or first product shipment), when looking at other national contexts.

The appropriate metric depends on context and managerial intentions. For example, some national contexts may emphasize stable employment instead of rapid growth.  If the local context is such that managers accept these external expectations, survival may be an appropriate measure, but growth would not. In other settings, say you are studying the influence of managers set on aggressive growth and high failure - such as studies of the influence of Silicon Valley in other contexts - survival may be inappropriate as a metric. 

Overall, the wrt performance measurement, you can use those that are generalizable across national contexts such as survival, growth, size and general milestones such as first sale. But as researchers, we must carefully decide what we are trying to say, how the local context influences the organization, how the local context constrains action, and whether the story is about external influence or local only.

All of the excellent answers suppose - probably correctly - that you want a macro/national level perspective. For a micro-level commentary see Birnberg, J. G., Turopolec, L., & Young, S. M. (1983). The organizational context of accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 8(2), 111-129. Unrelated, avoid using the notion of  "western conceptualization" as a uniformity - conceptualizations in the West are varied/multiple/heterogeneous. 

The simple answer for your question is 'not fair' !  using the same measurement regardless of the particular context is wrong. One can take basics of the performance measurement at any time, but so many unique conditions of the specific situation require consideration. However, it is not uncommon to see an application of the same measurements and even targets to evaluate performance across the globe.  One good example:  the international development actors  such as World Bank attempts to measure the development of  indigenous societies, far in Africa or Asia living their own way, with GDP; as they did for a nation state in US or EU.  That is clear malpractice one can see it

If the the research is nonpositivism, you can induce new measures but validation is required.

I think there is no size fits all. However, for similar economic settings, you may use similar performance measures.