ONE of the most frequently heard comments about Enrique Peña Nieto, the front-runner in Mexico's presidential race, is that in spite of his fame, no one really knows much about the man beneath the carefully styled quiff. I'm not sure that's true. Last year Mr Peña finished a six-year term in charge of the biggest state in Mexico. The Estado de México, or Mexico state, has a population of 15m, making it bigger than Guatemala and not far off the size of Chile. His time in charge there ought to offer plenty of clues about how he would manage the country if he wins July 1st's election.

Yesterday I went to Mexico state to get an idea of whether Mr Peña had made a decent job of running the place. We'll have a write-up in the print edition later, but in the meantime I recommend a good table in this month's Nexos magazine, which functions as a kind of scorecard for Mr Peña's time in office between 2005 and 2011. Alongside it is a similar one for Andrés Manuel López Obrador, Mr Peña's closest rival, who was the mayor of Mexico City between 2000 and 2006. Comparing the two is problematic, because they were in office during different periods and, of course, in different places. But for people who want to know more about the allegedly mysterious Mr Peña, the figures for Mexico state give a rough idea of what he did well and where he went wrong.

In terms of the economy, Nexos' figures show that the number of people in formal employment nearly doubled. There was also healthy growth in the number of companies. But income per capita remained pretty flat, and the unemployment rate increased somewhat. Foreign direct investment dropped quite a lot. The Gini measure of inequality got slightly worse.

It seems that the state struggled to offer basic services to its enormous population. The proportion of homes with their own drainage and sanitation increased, but access to piped water and electricity fell. (Fully 8% of homes did not have water in 2010.) And although the proportion of people with access to health care rose, the number of hospital beds per head fell. There was a big increase in the number of doctors, however. Educational attainment improved across the board, albeit slowly.

Crime shows a mixed picture. The murder rate remained fairly stable, but reports of kidnapping and car-theft rocketed. (As always, it is hard to say if this reflects more crime or more reporting.) Robberies in the street became less common. The rate of impunity was dreadful to begin with and remained so; the state didn't move from its place near the bottom of the corruption rankings (only Mexico City was worse).

The numbers suggest the state is neither the unqualified success that Mr Peña promotes, nor the disaster that his detractors would have us believe it is. Whatever the facts, voters seem to be delighted: the state government's approval rating rose from 62% to 75% during Mr Peña's time in office. This translated to a thumping victory for his successor in last year's gubernatorial election. Will it be replicated in the presidential poll on July 1st?