Final answer:
False, a monopolist using a two-part tariff does not achieve the same level of social surplus as in a perfectly competitive market because the monopolist captures all the surplus, leaving no consumer surplus.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that a monopolist using a two-part tariff achieves the same level of production and social surplus as would be achieved in a perfectly competitive market is false. While a monopolist engaging in perfect price discrimination would indeed produce the same amount of output as in a perfectly competitive market, the key difference lies in the distribution of surplus. In a perfectly competitive market, both consumer surplus and producer surplus exist, reflecting the benefits to both consumers and producers. However, with perfect price discrimination, the monopolist captures all of the surplus, leaving no consumer surplus. This occurs because consumers are charged the maximum price they are willing to pay for each unit, transferring all the surplus to the monopolist.
In a perfectly competitive market, price equals marginal cost, leading to allocative efficiency, where the social benefits of additional production equal the marginal costs to society. Conversely, in a monopolistic setting, especially with two-part tariffs, firms maximize profits by setting marginal revenue (MR) equal to marginal cost (MC), and hence they charge a price that exceeds MC, leading to allocative inefficiency and reduced social welfare compared to perfect competition.