clearly overrepresented in court cases. Their findings suggest that about half of the claimants are represented by a lawyer, as in preliminary proceedings. Krausbeck then goes into detail about the composition as well as the internal structure of Opposition Committees. She comes to the conclusion that there are substantial differences in the course of the meetings and the composition of the Objection Committees between the respective insurance carriers. These differences are most probably created by the great scope when determining the statutes and rules of procedure. Adler compares the German Objection Committees with the corresponding bodies in the United Kingdom. Since 2013, there has also been an opportunity for internal administrative review. A preliminary procedure by a remote dispute resolution team is mandatory in the UK as well. Adler concludes that the preliminary proceedings in the UK act as a filter, similar to the German social security system. The more than 200-page book concludes with a summary of the results. Generally speaking, the preliminary procedure fulfils its tasks and the Objection Committees are of great practical importance, despite their low degree of public recognition. The members of the Opposition Committees represent a self-confident, responsible body capable of monitoring legality and expediency of administrative decisions. The focus of the study was on surveys with members of the Objection Committees and judges. Hence, the non-inclusion of the appellants in this study presents a major gap, since it could have provided insights on why appeals are withdrawn or otherwise settled, why there are decision to not to file action and whether there is a need to attend the appeal meeting in the appellants opinion. Still this first-of-its-kind in-depth empirical research study on Objection Committees in the German social insurance system is a success and offers the reader a first starting point on a thoroughly exciting and important topic. This study, which is written in German, examines a specific issue of German social insurance. It is of general value for readers interested in the administrative procedures and might initiate further research on a comparative basis in this area.

中文翻译：

---

书评：福利国家的连续性和变化：爱尔兰共和国的社会保障

在法庭案件中明显过多。他们的调查结果表明，与初步程序一样，大约一半的索赔人由律师代理。随后克劳斯贝克详细介绍了反对委员会的组成和内部结构。她得出的结论是，各保险公司之间的会议进程和异议委员会的组成存在重大差异。这些差异很可能是由确定章程和议事规则时的范围大造成的。Adler 将德国异议委员会与英国的相应机构进行了比较。自 2013 年以来，也有机会进行内部行政审查。在英国，远程争议解决团队的初步程序也是强制性的。Adler 得出的结论是，英国的初步程序起到了过滤器的作用，类似于德国的社会保障体系。这本 200 多页的书最后总结了结果。总的来说，初步程序完成了它的任务，异议委员会尽管公众认可度较低，但具有重要的现实意义。反对委员会的成员代表了一个自信、负责的机构，能够监督行政决定的合法性和便利性。研究的重点是对异议委员会成员和法官的调查。因此，本研究中不包括上诉人是一个重大差距，因为它可以提供有关上诉被撤回或以其他方式解决的原因的见解，上诉人认为为何决定不起诉及是否需要出席上诉会议。尽管如此，这项关于德国社会保险体系中反对委员会的首次深入实证研究仍然是成功的，并为读者提供了一个非常令人兴奋和重要的话题的第一个起点。这项用德语撰写的研究报告探讨了德国社会保险的一个具体问题。它对于对行政程序感兴趣的读者具有普遍价值，并且可能会在该领域进行比较基础上的进一步研究。尽管如此，这项关于德国社会保险体系中反对委员会的首次深入实证研究仍然是成功的，并为读者提供了一个非常令人兴奋和重要的话题的第一个起点。这项用德语撰写的研究报告探讨了德国社会保险的一个具体问题。它对于对行政程序感兴趣的读者具有普遍价值，并且可能会在该领域的比较基础上开展进一步的研究。尽管如此，这项关于德国社会保险体系中反对委员会的首次深入实证研究仍然是成功的，并为读者提供了一个非常令人兴奋和重要的话题的第一个起点。这项用德语撰写的研究报告探讨了德国社会保险的一个具体问题。它对于对行政程序感兴趣的读者具有普遍价值，并且可能会在该领域进行比较基础上的进一步研究。